There are different stakeholders in the landscape of (institutional) repositories. I think it would be beneficial to think about how the stakeholders can enable (or hinder) the collaboration among repositories in terms of technical, metadata, and other standards.
It has been pointed out that the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles can be applied to scholarly communication in general. Would it be appropriate to incorporate them into the characteristics of the repositories and the available contents in the U.S. Repository Network?
One thing I don’t see on this list is the ability to provide data. Individual IRs usually have the ability to provide usage metrics (such as download counts or page views) to authors. Will repositories in the network adopt a commitment to data transparency? Does this fall under the “value-added services” of #13? Thanks for considering.
The second sentence in this paragraph is clunky. There’s no parallelism — the phrase “to track outputs and support preservation” uses verbs, but the rest of the sentence is a string of nouns. Maybe something like this instead: ” . . . to track outputs and support preservation; to facilitate reproducibility of research, research assessment, and compliance workflows; to afford new opportunities for publishing; and to boost individual and institutional visibility.”
I want to reiterate Dorothea’s comment below on the need for staff and investment throughout, but it is key on this point. Adhering to accessibility standards is not something that can be automated – you need dedicated, trained staffing models to make this happen.
And again, the ability to follow digital preservation standards will require investment in staffing.
I think this is a great aspirational characteristic, but I will look forward to more conversations about defining exactly in what ways we will “enable greater equity and inclusivity for all producers and consumers of research” when we have significant barriers to overcome, particularly with respect to the labor of adding research outputs to repositories (so a lot of barriers to inclusivity on producers of researchers)
Inclusive is an easy thing to say, but much more difficult to act upon – the USRN will need to consider how to overcome barriers to participation from a variety of repositories, while still maintaining a focus on membership interested in achieving the vision and goals. The foundational characteristics, for example, could be considered exclusionary if a repository doesn’t CURRENTLY “adhere to accessibility standards”, for example.
If this is to include (inclusive) all repositories regarless of where it lives and size then “all” should be restated here. Too often the voices here are primarily from R! institutions and don’t reflect the challenges of “different” institutions.
Who? is in this network should be spelled out. I want to believe it is inclusive, but will only know if I see my institution reflected there.
I think this is a great idea. I just hope that Digital Commons repositories will not be excluded like they are from the Lyrasis IRUS-US platform. A national network of repositories needs to include all types of repositories whether built in-house or on a third-party platform.
Institutional funding and staffing, please. Let’s not leave labor in the dust here.
This issue also points out to the question above regarding whether or not repositories that run on specific platforms will be ruled out or not (Digital Commons was mentioned specifically). Some platforms are better at adhering to accessiblity standards than others. So, if you have a platform that cannot meet these standards and you do not have the ability to migrate to a new one, are you automatically unable to join? And there’s the human labor component required to go back through a repository to ensure that all content meets current accessiblity standards.
Change “with a 63 member expert group of library leaders” to “with a 63-member expert group of library leaders” or “with an expert group of 63 library leaders”
[standards that allow interoperability across repositories and with value-added services.]
“standards that allow interoperability across repositories and provide value-added services.”
[simultaneously address both local, national, and global needs.]
Delete “both” since it implies only two things, and the text names three things.
I can see what you mean. It might be more clearly written in two sentences.
“They allow users to track outputs. They support…” And then list the things that it supports.
I have a problem with the example presented and where it is presented. It is so far the only example given in this introductory part. It is very specific, and doesn’t fit with the rest of the document. The rest of the document is very top level stuff, where-as this example is a specific suggestion to the community of a coarse of action. It feels tacked on. I believe this section would be stronger without the sample.
The word “more” may not be necessary since no comparison is offered that is “less” and that one can simply say that repositories ensure an equitable and inclusive landscape. I also wonder if landscape is the right word here. Environment might be better.
Interoperability is not equivalent to being seamless. There can still be barriers to access, but they are easier to overcome and address with interoperability. Do you get immediate access to the pdf or other formats? Do you still need to go through an interface? DO you need to establish a free account? Etc. You may want to define interoperability in this context and in paragraph 13 more completely.
As per Dorothea Salo’s comment on the previous characteristic, a well-designed and well-managed repository requires adequate staffing.
Repositories can help create a more equitable and inclusive environment, but they need to be actively managed toward this goal.
Agreed repositories improve access to research but we are far from seamless.
This statement is very definite about the benefits of connecting repositories and peer-review platforms. Do we know repositories offer a more rapid and cost effective route to the traditional publishing system? I hope and suspect they do, but I would hesitate to make this conclusion without more evidence.
It would be great to have an additional “Foundational Characteristic” that highlights the importance of supporting the continually changing needs and practices of scholars across all disciplines.
I agree. I think a separate section with a variety of real use cases benefitting both scholars and repository managers would be helpful.
Perhaps this definition or elsewhere should note what type of repositories we are not talking about. Repository as a general term can be applied to special collections libraries and archives. Does this include research data and other types of content? (I assume yes but wonder if others will get that.) As others have noted it’s important to acknowledge the human labor that makes up a repository and the increased effort/burden they may put not just on managers but other stakeholders.
Full support. However, as noted in the 4th VisionElement of Table 1 in the Report, “It’s important to note that while repositories ensure a more equitable and inclusive landscape, not every researcher has access to a repository.” The strategic vision shift from a vision for a US Repository Network to a Network of US Repositories. While a small change in language, it seems to suggest that this work will focus on existing repositories. Some clarity around this issue would be helpful.
The link in this paragraph goes to a Google Doc which isn’t publicly accessible.
Agreed with the points here on funding, governance, policies, and practices. But it’s important to add open infrastructure. Repositories are not sustainable (for the purposes we have in mind) if they run on proprietary software that can be acquired by Elsevier (see e.g. bepress, SSRN).
Is there any reason to limit this vision to the US? All or most of the specific points below apply just as well to repositories outside the US. Moreover, the “interoperable network of repositories” is global, not national, and that’s a critical part of its utility.
Out of curiosity: how do you expect the commitment to ‘stable institutional funding’ to be signaled/articulated in practice?
Perhaps the ‘why’ could be addressed here.
I think reference to stakeholders is important, and perhaps more concrete wording around ‘crucial role’. To me, the phrase isn’t strong enough, and outcomes are not addressed as concretely as they might be. Perhaps:
Leave a comment on paragraph 23An interoperable network of repositories is an essential component of our national research infrastructure, offering seamless and open access by the global community to research. By working together, U.S. repositories will also play a crucial role in the collective effort to transform global research communication and therefore outcomes into a more open and equitable system.
By acting collectively, repositories can standardize content and metadata, leading to a more uniform environment from which Open Access aggregators such as CORE (https://core.ac.uk/ ) can harvest content and present US IR repository content consistently to the world.
Is it worth referencing FAIR principles, just to ensure consistency across the globe? https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/
Thanks for noting this! Link is updated to public version.
May 13, 2022 at 7:22 pm
See in context
May 13, 2022 at 5:57 pm
May 13, 2022 at 5:55 pm
May 12, 2022 at 11:52 pm
May 12, 2022 at 11:49 pm
May 12, 2022 at 11:43 pm
May 12, 2022 at 3:28 am
May 12, 2022 at 3:15 am
May 11, 2022 at 9:28 pm
May 11, 2022 at 9:21 pm