DARE (08 Oct 2006)
MANDATE URL and TEXT
DAREnet and repositories in the Netherlands
http://www.darenet.nl/en/page/language.view/darenet.institution.page
DAREnet is not a repository but a service.
It is based on
the institutional repositories of the participants in the DARE
Programme. Originally these were the 13 Dutch universities, the Academy
and the Netherlands Research Organisation. Currently the number of
participants is growing.
DAREnet harvests from these repositories
only the metadata of
the openly accessible publications and it presents the result via
http://www.darenet.nl. At its inauguration on 27 January 2004 DAREnet
produced 17,000 full text documents. Today this is 80.140. A combined
ambitious project is under way in which the participants aim at a result
of over 100,000 at the end of this year. As a reference point: the annual
national production is 51,000 recognized research publications.
Cream of Science is a subset of DAREnet
comprising 45.651 publications
of over 200 Dutch top researchers. To complete their curriculums we have
also added the 18.000 metadata of their publications that could not be
exposed openly mainly because of copyright restrictions. These 18.000
metadata are not shown in DAREnet but only in the individual curriculums
in Cream of Science. Of course, users can email the authors to request
a personal copy by email.
Promise of Science is another subset of
DAREnet selecting the doctoral
theses. Today it has 11,000 theses, 4 times the annual national
production.
DAREnet and its subsets could be achieved
as a result of defining
challenging common milestones for the DAREnet community as a whole. In
addition to that (combinations of) DARE participants had their own
DARE projects.
The local policies of the repository
holders vary considerably. Some only
collect metadata (and publications) that are openly accessible. Others
also collect metadata that give access to publications to which
only campus access can be given (licensed material). Finally, a few
even include metadata that refer to older paper material (catalogue
records). To avoid misunderstanding, in any case the repository
concentrates on the production of its own institution.
Mandates are emerging for doctoral theses.
At the moment this is the
case at five or six universities but it is expected that the others will
follow soon. There are no mandates operational or foreseen for other
publications at the moment. However, at all universities the publication
registry system (that produces the annual report) is linked to the
institutional repository recently. So, the metadata of the institutional
production will be imported into the repositories automatically. The
registry application has a simple "upload button" that enables a
one-click posting of the publication itself. More and more authors,
or their secretaries, are using this facility.
The crucial step however remains the
guidance that institutes give to
their authors. Here also, the policies of the DARE participants vary
greatly. Some match every publication with the RoMeo/Sherpa database to
see if posting in their repository is allowed. This is a time consuming
procedure and, accordingly, their production is quite low. Others
follow a less labourious procedure e.g. using the Elsevier clause
that permits "[to] post a revised personal version of the final text
(including illustrations and tables) of the article (to reflect changes
made in the peer review and editing process) on your personal or your
institutional website or server, with a link (through the relevant DOI)
to the article as published, provided that such postings are not for
commercial purposes as described below". Again others also use the
official pdf-versions that are posted by the authors themselves on their
personal web site. Publications with a temporary embargo period are taken
in. We have developed software that automatically frees the publication,
and makes it visible in DAREnet, when the embargo expires.
Apart from one guideline, there is no
central DARE policy for IPR. We
did so deliberately in order to avoid lengthy academic debates. The only
guideline that we have defined concerns publications from before 1998
i.e. from the paper based era. For these publications the copyright
for the digital version has never been given away to a publisher
simply because the notion of digital copyright did not exist at the
time. Universities leaned heavily on this fact when they scanned the
older publications of the Cream of Science participants and posted these
in their repositories. Further, we support decentralized awareness and
decision making by means of a copyright toolbox that we have developed
together with JISC (http://www.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox)
Finally, with respect to technology we
follow the same hybrid approach
of local freedom within a limited number of common agreements. These
concern the definition of certain sets in the repositories, the use
of DOI as persistent identifier, some agreements about qualifiers in
Dublin Core, the use of DIDL for compound documents (actually we use an
XML-container which is a simplified version of DIDL), a Digital Author
Identifyer and may be a few more. Unfortunately there are six different
repository applications around, which make the setting up and maintenance
of aggregated services quite laborious.
Contributed by Waaijers, Leo (Platformmanager ICT en Onderzoek)
| MANDATE TYPE: | UNSPECIFIED |
|---|---|
| REPOSITORY URL(s): | http://www.darenet.nl/en/page/language.view/search.page |
| Depositing User: | Tim Brody |
| Date Deposited: | 08 Oct 2006 12:10 |
| Last Modified: | 28 Feb 2011 15:02 |
| URI: | http://roarmap.eprints.org/id/eprint/32 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
