building blocks for success: criteria for trusted institutional repositories
TRANSCRIPT
1
Building blocks for success: criteria for trusted institutional repositories
Ina Smith
Presented during the Annual DATAD Conference, 24-26 August 2016, AAU & Lupane State
University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Agenda
• What is a “Trusted Institutional Repository”?
• Auditing & Certification Systems• Metadata Compatibility• DATAD Criteria for a TIR• Procedure for inclusion in DATAD
Trust
“People trust those who they believe have their best interests at heart. This is three to four times more important than perception of expertise.”
People trust your IR when they believe the IR does what is in their best interest.
Also funders, the institution, your country.
Source: Why don’t we trust the experts?/Tom Stafford
What is a “Trusted Institutional Repository”?
“A trusted digital repository is one whose mission is to provide reliable, long-
term access to managed digital resources to its designated community,
now and in the future.”
Source: RLG-OCLC Report 2002
Supporting web page with info about IR
About: policies, historyStatus: ranking info, DATAD evaluation outcomeStatistics: downloads, citations, altmetricsHelp: FAQs, video clips, screen castsContact Us: Advisory Board, Manager, System Admin, other role playersEtcLink back to institution with which affiliated
Demo Only
Auditing & Certification Systems
Methodologies (1)
• OAIS Reference Model (ISO)• Trusted digital repositories: attributes and
responsibilities (RLG/OCLC) (2002)• An audit checklist for the certification of
trusted digital repositories (RLG-NARA) (2005)
• Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification: Criteria & Checklist (TRAC) (CRL) (2007)
Methodologies (2)
• Data Seal of Approval (DANS) (2008)• DIN 31644 Information and documentation
– Criteria for trustworthy digital archives (German Standards Committee) (2008)
• Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories (Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems) (2011)
• ISO 16363 Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (2012)
Methodologies (3)
• ISO 16919 Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories
• Expected outcome: development of approved audit & certification bodies in countries
European Framework for Audit & Certification
• Tiered approach to certification• Data Seal of Approval: entry-level self-
assessment and peer review• DIN 31644 or ISO 16363: extensive self-
assessment (internal audit)• ISO 16363: full scale external audit
Data Seal of Approvalhttp://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/assessment/
• 16 guidelines based on criteria:
• Data can be found on Internet• Data accessible• Data in usable format• Data reliable• Data identified in a unique & persistent way so
that it can be referred to
What is the ISO 16363 Standard?
• Suite of standards, national & international level
• Demonstrate trustworthy & responsible data management, stewardship
• Provide direction to repositories• Demonstrates
• Adherence to quality & consistency• Respect for data integrity• Commitment to long-term preservation &
access
What is an ISO 16363 Audit?
• Internal audit (self-assessment): Preparation by repository – ISO 16363 metrics
• External audit: Site visit by audit team• Formal report to repository• Certification of repository as OAIS
Compliant• Maintain certification over time
Preparing for an ISO 16363 self-assessment
• Excel spread sheet:http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Audit
• Assess repository in terms of:• Organisational infrastructure• Digital object management• Infrastructure and security risk management
Center for Research LibrariesTRAC/ISO 16363 https://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital-archives/metrics
International Council for Science World Data Systemhttps://
www.icsu-wds.org/services/certification
DRAMBORA http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/
Nestor Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories
Based on ISO 16363
Germany
http://files.d-nb.de/nestor/materialien/nestor_mat_08-eng.pdf
Other
• Digital Asset Assessment Tool (DAAT) Project ‐ file format testing (UK)
• DINI certification criteria ‐ Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (German Initiative for Networked Information)
• Long Term Digital Preservation (LTDP) Automated Assessment – maturity level (IBM)
• Moims‐rac (MOIMS‐Repository Audit and Certification)
Metadata Compatibility
http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Metadata
OpenAIRE Metadata Compatibility Testing
OpenAIRE Compatibility Testing
Guidelines for Literature Repositories (1)
Guidelines for Literature Repositories (2)
Guidelines for Literature Repositories (3)
Guidelines for Literature Repositories (4)
Validate your IR …
OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/
DATAD Criteria for a TIR
Policy• National/institutional OA policy/mandate• Digital preservation policy• Back-up policy• Copyright policy• Licensing policy (Creative Commons)• Metadata policy• Retraction policy• Privacy policy (SA POPI Act)• IT Policy• National Acts e.g. Copyright Act
1
Preservation• Handle service enabled - persistent identifiers
(handles) assigned on item level• Use of open file formats (see DSpace Bitstream
Registry)• File naming: brief, lower case, no spaces e.g.
smith_analysis_2014.pdf• Checksum• Full text files remain accessible over time
(migrate)• Managed/controlled access - embargoes• Off-site preservation in a dark archive• Taylor made IR software used e.g. E-Prints,
Dspace – curation function - most recent stable version
2
DC Metadata (XML)
Bitstream
Relationships stored between components in a bundle
(METS Metadata Standard)
Metadata
Sustainability• Focus & Scope• History/background• Organisational sustainability• Strategic planning/Operational planning• Budget: upgrades etc.• Dedicated full time staff with role descriptions• Service Level Agreement between IR owner (e.g.
library) and institutional IT division• Capacity building & contingency planning
3
Accessibility & Visibility (1)• Metadata crawled by search engines e.g. Google
& Google Scholar (provided Google Sitemap has been configured for optimal indexing)
• Repository registered with major harvesters• Repository registered with major directories• Repository presence on social media• Repository ranked bi-annually (January & July)
by Webometrics• ISSN-L registered with ISSN Centre• Clean, professional UI, scalable to e.g. mobile
4
Accessibility & Visibility (2)• OAI-PMH Activated• HTTP Status• OAI-PMH Compliancy tested with
validator.oaipmh.com• Metadata Standards e.g. Dublin Core, METS• Base URL available• Harvesting conditions• IR tested against other validation tools e.g.
OpenAIRE
Security
• Power• Server firewalled• Server monitoring• Disaster recovery: back-up procedure • User logins use secure connection that is
verified e.g. by Verisign
5
Submissions (Ingest)• Self-submission/staff submission/automated
submission• Workflow: quality reviewed by Metadata Editor
(Cataloguer)• Minimum metadata captured• Technical, Administrative, Preservation Metadata• Full text versions only:
Post-print/Peer-reviewed/Publisher’s Version• Scientific content only• UTF8/Unicode encoding scheme activated
6
Branding & Customisation
• Unique IR name, URL• URL should not have port 8080 • Best practice used e.g. repository.xxx.zz (YES)www.xxx.zz/repository (NO)• None/minimal• Themed to reflect identity• Simple look and feel, no adverts
7
Digitisation
• Digitisation planning• Digitisation standards• Digitisation equipment• Selection criteria for material to be
digitised
8
Marketing & Support
• Information about the repository• Wikipedia entry• Marketing strategy, e.g. training (around
thesis/dissertation submission period), visits to departments – with opportunities to learn more
• FAQs page, contextualised help• Contact details
9
Legal• Also see policies• Provision made for embargoes• Retraction process• Disclaimer re content contained in individual
items• Privacy: only use information re e-persons for IR
purposes• Researcher identifiers e.g. ORCID• Alignment with scholarly journal deposit policies
available through SHERPA/RoMEO
10
Usage & Impact
• Status of IR – active/not active/ demonstrate consistent growth
• Provide statistics:• Downloads• Citations• Article level metrics (Alternative metrics)
• Metric systems e.g. Google Analytics, Piwik, system specific
• Growth and impact of IR over time
11
Governance• Members of Advisory Board• Dedicated repository manager and clear contact
details• Dedicated systems administrator and clear
contact details• Ownership (“publisher”)• Associated with a trusted institution/ society/
other• IR Structure: Communities & Collections• Reporting
12
Demo Only
Procedure for inclusion in DATAD• Minimum criteria• Minimum + Additional criteria – qualify
for DATAD Seal• Request evaluation• Independent peer-review by min. 2
experts• Recommendation &
Inclusion/Rejection/DATAD Seal
Also see:• http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Audit • http://
wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php/SUNScholar/Audit#Example_reports
