Part 2 of 2: Evaluation of the ‘Deposit Tool Show and Tell’ (Features and Flows of Deposit)
NOTE TO READER: JISC IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING A CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO FURTHER EMBED DEPOSIT TOOLS AND SOLUTIONS INTO THE AUTHORS DAY-TO-DAY WORKBENCH. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO ONE OF JISC’S MANY FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT FEEDS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS CALL.
PLEASE ALSO SEE PART 1 OF 2 WHICH PROVIDES A REPORT ON THE ‘DEPOSIT TOOL SHOW & TELL’ MEETING INCLUDING A LIST OF WHAT TOOLS WERE SHOWN ON THE DAY
Published by: David F. Flanders (JISC Programme Manager)
There were three parts to the ‘Deposit Tool Show & Tell Meeting which provides the scope for what a deposit tool is:
- Types of deposit tools (e.g. drag and drop, email, file/folder, etc). These “tool types” are listed in this presentation by David F. Flanders.
- Types of features present within the deposit tools (e.g. auto name lookup, publications management, recommendations, etc.). These “tool features” are listed here in the the following set of pictures as they were written out on the day (also see the list below).
- Types of (work)flows that the author’s research content can go through to be published as Open Access (e.g. author deposit to publisher then publisher push to repository, author deposit to personal platform with repository auto-archiving information, etc.). These“deposit flows” are listed here in this set of pictures as they were written out on the day (also see the below list along with images).
It is the evaluation of the latter two (‘DEPOSIT TOOL FEATURES’ and ‘DEPOSIT FLOWS’) that provided the most significant implications on the day. What follows is a very brief evaluation of what participants on the day decided were priority areas for deposit features and flows (please keep in mind this is only a ‘straw pole’ taken on the day) .
DEPOSIT TOOL FEATURES:
During the first half of the day twenty-some deposit tools were shown off, while these tools were being shown off each one of their features was listed on a piece of large piece of paper (i.e. flip-chart), these features were then hung up around the room during lunch time for people to go around and vote on them (by placing a green sticker on their preferred features, known as ‘dotmocracy’). Listed below is that list of deposit features along with the votes that each one recieved (to note: the fifty-some participants had 3 votes each).
- Auto Look-up / Select from Drop Down List: the author when filling in metadata about their publication is able to select basic information from lists of “matching” items as they type in fields such as: Publisher, ISSN, Author Name, Institution, Subject Areas, etc. 9 votes.
- Name Authority: Able to provide an authoritative list of author names for both authors trying to combine their various named spelling versions as well as for citation by authors of other authors. 7 votes.
- Manage/Edit Publications List: enabling author to manage their publications list for publishing and presenting to the wider world. 7 votes.
- Expose Granular Content: being able to show the content within a publication as it’s own individual parts (multiple HTTP link anchors in each item) be that per section, per activity, per media type, etc. 7 votes.
- Recommendation: able to provide recommendation to the author (after deposit) of other like-minded authors and/or other similar content to their own. 6 votes.
- Email Upload (SMTP/POP3/IMAP): ability for author to email their content directly into system without intermediary. 6 votes.
- License: Able to add copyright metadata about the article with as little hassle as possible to the author. 5 votes.
- Broker: ability to pass publication to a broker that will hold paper for an embargo period until it is able to be published. 5 votes.
- Trust: making sure that the trust between author and tool/publisher/library/archive/etc is well established on behalf of the authors. 4 votes
- Catching Documents At Creation Time: As part of the author’s writing process, enabling the auto saving of documents as they are versioned and created. 4 votes.
- Desktop Hoover: enabling the author’s computer to auto crawl files and folder to suggest what content might be deposited. 2 votes.
- Return RIP URL: being able to return a link (after deposit) that shows the user where their content has been published. 2 votes
- Bulk Deposit: ability to upload collections of content in one go. 2 votes.
- Versioning: ability to handle multiple versions of same publication as single deposit. 2 votes.
- Distribution Rights: Ability to declare how published content (both technically and legally) can be repurposed and reused. 1 vote
- File Hierarchy: being able to have your list of online Web publications listed as a file hierarchy so that authors can organise their content in specified folders, e.g. as a networked drive. 1 vote.
- Workbench Toolbar: being able to mark up various parts of the publication while you are authoring it with tags and other machine readable text. 1 vote
- Archivist/Librarian/RepoManager/Publisher Proxy Deposit: Enable deposit tools that allow for others to deposit on behalf of the author. 1 vote
- Embargo Edit Area: allowing the user to enter an embargo area where they can access their data prior to it being published/archived. 1 vote.
- Uploading List of Publications by Author: able to upload metadata to system that provides further information about the user and their publications, like person profile metadata. 1 vote.
- Embed in HTML: ability to embed a deposit tool anywhere that allows for html embed script: blogs, facebook, etc. 1 vote.
- Save As: being able to save directly from an authoring tool, e.g. within Word by clicking a “save as” or rather “save to… repository”. 0 votes.
Please note: these votes are only a snapshot of what people were thinking on the day and do not reflect a definitive list of features or concerns. Rather the vote was only intended as a way to engage people in the features listed and to help further specify which were of significant interest on the day.
DEPOSIT TOOL FLOWS:
The list of deposit (work)flows was presented by Jim Downing as part of the ongoing Repository Handshake work which is being lead by Pablo de Castro who was also present on the day.
The five flows presented were (in order of the vote, also see images below):
- Publish via Personal Publications Management System, e.g. system to sync various versions of publication out on the Web (12 votes);
- Author Self-Publishing, e.g. via website, blog or other personal publishing platform (9 votes);
- Publish via Broker, e.g. a broker service watches with publications appear on a publisher platform and pull content into an embargo area until publisher allows for open publishing of content (5 votes);
- Publish via Repository, e.g. author gives to institutional repository and repository is responsible for passing out to other platforms and publications systems (3 votes);
- Publish via Single Event/Theme, e.g. conference publishing system or other publishing platform provided by an organisation for others to contribute around a common theme/tag/node (0 votes).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Again please note: these votes only represent a view of the priorities placed on the day and do not represent a comprehensive list.
PLEASE ALSO SEE PART 1 OF 2 WHICH PROVIDES A REPORT ON THE ‘DEPOSIT TOOL SHOW & TELL’ MEETING, INCLUDING A LIST OF WHAT TOOLS WERE SHOWN ON THE DAY
Comments
6 Responses to “Part 2 of 2: Evaluation of the ‘Deposit Tool Show and Tell’ (Features and Flows of Deposit)”
Leave a Reply
[...] Déposer: florilège de projets (2) Part 2 of 2: Evaluation of the ‘Deposit Tool Show and Tell’ (Features and Flows of Deposit) [...]
It would be really interesting to see what the dotmocracy results would be between those scenarios for a) pro-OA academics and b) repository managers.
resubmitted (word press – just like almost all IRs!)does not allow valid multiple affiliations to be cited so here they are)
email: mwigan@unimelb.edu.au,m.wigan@napier.ac.uk, m./wigan@imperial.ac.uk
While there are many encouraging technical ideas here, and as a machine agnostic user (MacosX for my professional work, windows at one of the universities, Unix for my own servers) I was delighted to see the Open Offcie coverage.. and the OneClick addition has proved to be effective in tailored versions of at least one major Government Archiving Requirement (VERS in the State of Victoria Australia) in trials done in the large Department of Infrastructure many years ago.. and VERS has to capture far more than a University repository due to the Archiving Acts (I find that such global governmental archiving acts and their implementation a great area for complementary inspirations in lbraray repository assessments)
However there is a basic point that Id like to add as an active researcher n several non-computer related fields, that the process of engaging authors at Draft stage with controlled circulation(s) in multinstitutional networks is a key to getting early engagement in the deposit process.
I can enlarge on this point, but once made it becomes clear to most that the engagement with ‘deposit’ is Just Another Admin Requirement Imposed Overhead at the end of a project, yet becomes a helpful means of managing iterative improvement and communciation if the engagement occurs well well before any ‘publication’ is even contemplated. Thats why my own system (a bit dated now at 2004/5 design) at http://www.reorisnt.org.uk allows multiple versioning, 16 layers of user controllable and variable security – and we have built automated thesaurus based keyword generators as an add on tool – all the keep the authors engaged in the overall repository system from the start.
So my suggestion to this list is that work needs to be done on the attitudinal and engagement factors as well as the incremental tools so ably summarised here. I have a small personal project of that kind [in Melbourne, not napier]to explore this as and when i find resources to pursue it..
not for moderator
please forgive my dyslexia— the website cited is http://www.reorient.org.uk
and of course my imperial address is m.wigan@imperial.ac.uk
my apologies!
mrw
To note some further work from the Repository Handshake Group: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dff-jisc/4088667379/
[...] of supporting deposit as an easier and more rewarding process. What is immediately required is the embedding of the complete deposit solution into the authoring or related research process. [...]