The document compares the institutional repositories of the National University of Malaysia (UKM) and the University of Liverpool (UoL). It describes the establishment of each IR, including the motivations, stakeholders involved, policies, formats and types of content accepted, and usage statistics. For UKM's eRep, submission of academic publications is mandatory, while UoL's Research Archive takes a voluntary approach. The role of librarians is also discussed.

1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY : A BRIEF COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL.
By
HarithFaruqiSidek,
AzmahIshak,
NoorFarhanaMohdSaleh,
ZanariahZainol

2. Introduction

3. Institutional Repositories (IR) ?
Clifford Lynch (2003)...
“Inmyview,auniversity-basedinstitutionalrepositoryisasetofservicesthatauniversityofferstothemembersofitscommunityforthemanagementanddisseminationofdigitalmaterialscreatedbytheinstitutionanditscommunitymembers.Itismostessentiallyanorganizationalcommitmenttothestewardshipofthesedigitalmaterials,includinglong- termpreservationwhereappropriate,aswellasorganizationandaccessordistribution.Notableinthisdefinitionistheemphasisonlong-termpreservation.Sincepreservingdigitalinformation,whichcanbepreparedinawidevarietyofformats(e.g.,ASCII,HTML,orPDF),isnotsimpleandthelong- termcostsofdoingsoarebasicallyunknown,itisnosmallmatterforauniversitytocommittopreservingallthesediverseandeverchangingformatsforever”.

4. Why University of Liverpool ?

5. •QS World ranking 2010 UoL(121), UKM (263)
•Members of the Russell Group, an association of 20 major research-intensive universities in UK
•University of Birmingham
•University of Bristol
•University of Cambridge
•Cardiff University
•University of Edinburgh
•University of Glasgow
•Imperial College London
•King's College London
•University of Leeds
•University of Liverpool
•Using different Platform
•Interview with UoLIR Librarian, Shirley Yearwood-Jackman
•London School of Economics & Political Science
•University of Manchester
•Newcastle University
•University of Nottingham
•University of Oxford
•Queen's University Belfast
•University of Sheffield
•University of Southampton
•University College London
•University of Warwick

6. The Establishment

7. eRep
•Started in 2006 while preparing Research Reports for Research University.
•Problems encountered while preparing the Reports :
oNeed to access various sources for UKM Publications
oSome sources are not reliable
oDuplication of Records
oUntraceable records –even the library does not have it.
•A Special Committee was formed to set-up a “One Stop Centre” IR for academic publications, The Library as core member.
•Start with 2006 data, a migration from other system (SPPU).

8. http://www.ukm.my/erep

10. Research Archive
•Recommendation was made to the Information Services Committee and Research committee by the University Librarian
•Approval and funding for the IR project was given by the University on the same year after the Executive Management was convinced by the clarification on the benefits of an IR by University Librarian, Phil Sykes.
•The projects also successfully gained support from select group of senior academicians. Vision needed to be shared with majority of academics.
•Integrated the IR into the research management systems
•Developing from scratch, no data migration.

11. http://research-archive.liv.ac.uk/

12. Where can we find the link?

13. eRep

14. Research Archive

15. Getting Started

16. eRep
•The Committee recognized “KDUKM” a library information management system to adopted as university IR. The library however against the idea due to technical issues.
•The Library and Centre for Information and Technology (PTM) was given the task to develop a totally new system based on requirement at university level.
•PTM took approximately 3 months to come up with a prototype , which successfully approved by the committee, the system later known as e- Penerbitan.
•e-Penerbitanwent its pilot phase for 3 months , all university academic members bounded to a mandate at the university level for academic publications submission into the system. The system later become compulsory.
•In 2009, the system was renamed as eRep.

17. Research Archive
•Started the pilot phase with pre-identified 9 academic departments with difference
academic disciplines.
1) Faculty of Arts
2) Faculty of Engineering
3) Faculty of Medicine
4) Faculty of Science
5) Faculty of Social and Environmental Studies
6) Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
7) Institutes
-Inst. of Cancer Studies
-Inst. of Irish Studies
8) Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
9) Research Centre
-Centre for Archive Studies
-Cancer Tissue Bank
-Centre for Cell Imaging
-Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation

18. •Those adopted department freely decided on their content submission.
•During the pilot phase, advocacy strategy was in place to gained full support from the rest.
•Collaboration with the CSD (Computer Service Department) on technical

19. Technical Aspect

20. eRep
•Develop using programming software ColdFusion MX7 and its database was supported by Informix and MySQL.
•Using Dell PowerEdge2850 which operated by Intel Xeon 2.8GHz as its Central Processing Unit (CPU). The server supplies 2GB memory and has the capacity of 68.24 GB on its Hard Disc. The server for storage and database also using the server from the same series, however its Central Processing Unit (CPU) is 2X Intel Xeon 38.GHZ with 4GB memory and bigger Hard Disc capacity at 270GB.

21. Research Archive
•Open Source initiatives software, “Eprints”.
Five criteria identified for assessing e-prints
1–E-prints provides wider and /or more convenient access
than alternatives such as published journal papers
2–E-prints is cited by more scholars
3–E-prints contains unique information, not recorded elsewhere
4–Eprintsforms a significant part of the research record ( for example, early drafts of important research
5–E-prints is part of a wider collection deemed worthy of
preservation

22. •Well use among the community
•well supported
•Customized package by Eprints
•CSD initially involved in the project for technical support.

23. The Role of The Librarian

24. eRep/ Research Archive
•Involved in the pre-establishment stage
•Core member of the establishment Committee
•The Administrator / Owner of the IR
•Managing Quality Assurance –Tracking and resolving issues.
•Developing IR policies and procedure
•Promotional and Advocacy –share the value of IR with academics
•“Technology watch” to ensure sustainability

25. Content Policy

26. eRep
•Compulsory submission for academics
-Assesment
-Promotion
-Publication Incentive scheme

27. Research Archive
•Voluntarily Environment ,
Would you like to…You must to…

28. eRep
1.Books
2.Chapter in Books
3.Monographs
4.Journal Articles
5.Proceedings
6.Technical reports
7.Seminar Papers
8.Book Review
9.Translated Articles
10.Occasional Publications
11.Popular writings
12.Translated Books
13.Teaching Package
14.Films / Videos/ Slides/ Multimedia
15.OthersOverall data on 1stJuly 2011 23,954.

29. Research Archive
1.Article
2.Book Section
3.Monograph
4.Conference or Workshop Item
5.Book
6.Thesis
7.Patent
8.Other
9.Review
10.Software
11.Map
12.Report
13.Discussion
14.Pre-submitted ThesisOverall data on 1stJuly 2011 699

30. Content Format

31. eRep
•PDF only

32. Research Archive
•HTML
•PDF
•Postscript
•Plain Text
•Rich Text (RTF)
•Microsoft PowerPoint
•Microsoft Excel
•Microsoft Word
•Image (JPEG)
•Image (PNG)
•Image (GIF)
•Image (BMP)
•Image (TIFF)
•Video (MPEG)
•Video (QuickTime)
•Video (AVI)
•Video (WMV)
•Video (MP4)
•Video (MP4)
•Video (Flash)
•Video (AVCHD)
•XML
•N3
•RDF/XML
•Archive (BZ2)
•Archive (TGZ)
•Archive (ZIP)
•Audio (WAV)
•Audio (MP3)
•Audio (OGG)
•Audio (FLAC)
•Audio (WMA)
•Other

33. IR Team

34. eRepManaging Collections:
1.Archives
2.Special Collection

35. Research ArchiveManaging Collections: 0

36. Our Advantages

37. •Enjoys full support from stakeholders
•Sustainability is guaranteed due to ongoing development
•Ultimately main source for UKM academic heritage.
•Multiple reports customization
•Accessible thru handheld devices for all purposes. (Web 2.0 = Librarian 2.0)
•Single Deposit, Multiple Use.

38. eRepReports

39. What can we learn from UoL?

40. •Partnership Approach
-Catered to the needs of different disciplines
-Gave academics a stake in the IR
-Improved the ability of the Academic Unit to manage IR
-Made them more aware of any changes via effective communication.
•Academic Representatives usually a senior academic with connection to Research Committee.
•Utilize Subject Librarian / Library Reps
•Google indexed

41. Thank You