But when emphasising the benefits of depositing in a repository to depositors, all of the user types you list will benefit through the use of different systems and methods. OK, so these user groups have different needs and views, but they are all still benefiting.
This is where the separation between repositories and services becomes useful. Any given user/usecase could access the same content through potentially multiple services, which given a core framework could be reused with or across other repositories, or be combined to solve a different usecase.
Could you clarify what the benefits are to the user before (or during) deposit? From the discussion on the 4th July it appeared to me that most of the benefits to the user came after this stage indirectly through the use/analysis/dissemination of the object in relation to other users or organizations. I can see the benefit of versioning or (semi-)automated metadata creation tools, perhaps built into the deposit framework. Are there other tool or methods that could add this extra benefit to encourage further deposits?
Possible benefits include: the ability to store the information somewhere all parties to the work can get at it (may be important in collaborative research) the ability to link it to other data more easily version control the ability to share it with particular people for comment / discussion security (back ups by some one who will actually do them)
note that a repository is only one way of achieving this.
Despite having voted against this, perhaps worth adding:
Some spinoffs you should get from your RRS would include persistent elements for your personal, department, group or project web pages (even the pages themselves). It should provide support for your CV, eg elements of your bibliography, project history, etc. It will provide you and your group with persistent end-points to link to.
Voting this down because it assumes potential depositors are altruistic and will CARE about the services to end-users. They aren't and they don't. If we want repos to survive, the FIRST people they have to serve are the depositors. Everybody else is an afterthought, I'm sorry.
I agree with Dorothea, depositors are primarily motivated by what will help them. Hence the importance of research funders' mandates. One problem with the mandates so far is that few research funders seem to have distinct plans as to how they will monitor/ensure compliance.
Are there any services available to help research funders monitor compliance? If not then maybe a search service would be useful which allows funders to search for research which comes under their mandate. Is this something that Intute RS could develop for UK funders?
I was thinking of voting this one up, as services ti uses and users is very very important, but I must agree that services to depositors is the crucial issue that repository advocates/managers must confront.
The Depot operates as more than a repository but we view potential depositors as the main use community. For Jorum, securing materials for sharing means a focus on depositors. For the former (Depot), we are exploring how to reward as well as make easier the act of deposit through the EM-LOADER project, the reward being a bibliography and deposit made easier by extraction of metadata from external/extant sources combined with batch (and not just item) loading - and we envisage that we may start to get bulk loads by research groups/PIs. For the latter (Jorum) most deposit happens by groups - usuallly project teams involved in making online learning objects/materials.
Revise
Vote Up
Vote Down
Post New Comment
Close