Chiba Univ. Haruo ASOSHINAHokkaido Univ. Maiko KOSAKA
Hokkaido Univ. Masako SUZUKI
CURATORChiba University’s Repository
&
HUSCAPHokkaido University’s Repository
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 2
Chiba University
• Faculty 1,200• Staff 1,300• Undergraduate Students 12,000• Graduate Students 3,500
• Undergraduate Programs – Letters, Education, Law & Economics, Scie
nce, Engineering, Pharmaceutical Science, Nursing Science, Horticulture, Medicine
• Graduate Programs(Master’s and Doctoral)– Humanities, Education, Social Science, Sci
ence and Technology, Medical and Pharmaceutical Science
– Law School• 1 University Hospital• 12 Research Centers
http://www.chiba-u.ac.jp/e/
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 3
Chiba University Libraryhttp://www.ll.chiba-u.ac.jp/
• Main Lib & 2 branchs• Collection
1,500,000
• Circulation/year 148,000
• ILL /year 10,000
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 4
Our IR : CURATOR• Name : CURATOR Chiba University's Repository for Access to Outcomes fr
om Research• Contents : 800- records, so far• System :
self-developed(Not using open source softwares) OS:Linux DB:Oracle • Registration :
OAI data provider, IAR(Institution Archives Registry)• URL
http://mitizane.LL.chiba-u.jp/curator/
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 5
CURATOR: Status
System
’03 Prototype (‘-05)Independent system 1Ghz, 1GB, 80GB Dell
’06- Enforce for “actual release” 3GHz, 2GB,RAID5(1TB) Dell
Team
IR WG young staff(6) & Div. Manager(1)
Mainly in charge of System & serials section (2)
Committee of Info. disseminationFaculty & lib. Managers (10)
CooperationPR on/off campusPresentation for faculties
each campus & unit Web SiteSymposium (Sep. ’05)
What is IR, What is CURATOR.
DomesticCSI (18 univ. consortia for developing IR)Harvested Junii (National GW)
InternationalOAI , IARScirus as well as T-Space Google
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 6
CURATOR: Number of records
Three quarters depending on “digitized bulletins” (batch-loaded)
Intend to advocate all faculties by presentation and pamphlet, but very few responsed.
Very few (Green) journal articles submitted.
Cooperation with “Faculty accomplishment system” (semi-automatically catch articles)Not believe and not rely on self-archiving.
We(library)“find and gather anything”Not intend to advocate all faculties OA.
Negotiation with “targeted customers”. Anyway, break and try new route as above.
Digital collection500
Other 1000
Doctoral Thesis 2000
Article over1000
Departmental BulletinPape 2000r
Research Paper 500
TeachingMaterial
Expected (Dec.’06)
total over7,500
Book 1Other 72
Conference Paper
Doctoral Thesis 24
J ournal Article 64
Departmental BulletinPape 564r
Book Chapter 17Research Paper 19
Technical Report 44
Preprint 12
Teaching Material
Now (Dec.’05)
total 827
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 7
CURATOR:Faculties’ contribution
Zero91%
More than 19%
How many articles do our faculties submit to CURATOR?
Now (Dec.’05)
Zero20%
More than 250%
One30%
Expected (Dec.’06)
Miserable…
I hope at least like this…
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 8
Anyway, we need content, content, content.
For the moment, our basic interest is only “how do we make our IR richer with contents, rather reasonably and automatically? “
1. Finish the past (digitizable paper) ASAP. Like complete jigsaw.
2. Break several routes to collect “present & future” (digital version) rather than SA.
CURATOR:Future
Hokkaido Univ.
Chiba Univ.
Location
• Researchers 2,123• Undergraduate students 11,299• Graduate students 6,250• Established in 1876 as Sapporo
Agricultural College ( 札幌農学校 )
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 10
HUSCAPHokkaido University collection of scholarly and academic papers
• DSpace1.2.1• 100 researchers • 150 papers
- peer-reviewed: 100- hit: 18,300 times
• Jul. 2005 ~ Feb. 2006 trial
HASKAP ( berry)
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 11
HUSCAP http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 12
Before HUSCAP (1/2)
• WG (all librarians) started in June 2004• Researcher’s survey on OA practice in Nov. to inform researchers of OA, IR… , and to understand researcher’s needs for IR
– Responded 466(22%) of 2142 faculty• Agree with OA 421(91%) (51 already practiced)• Agree with IR 328(70%) • Agree to discuss with library about OA and IR 168
– No one knows about IR
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 13
Before HUSCAP (2/2)
• March 2005 ~ May 2005• Campus-use only• Uploaded by researchers themselves• Request to 168 researchers to upload their papers in the
list of green papers made by library from WoS
• 30 researchers, 50 papers however 26 of them were pub. pdf
• Interview (→ mostly, Author’s ver. files lost )
“Hokkaido Univ. Academic Repository”
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 14
HUSCAP• World wide access• Uploaded by librarians
Researchers email papers by attached files
• Receive researcher’s submission at the same time as the journal rather than upload past papers retrospectively
• Change the way of approach to researchers– Before : IR, OA, serial crisis, strictly – Now : Digital Library Collection with a function of IR
and OA
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 15
Which to emphasize?Library collection development
Accountability as a public-funded research organization
Visibility, Research Impact
To researchers
To executives
Inside library
Hokkaido University
To researchers
To executives
Inside library
Chiba University
To researchers
To executives
Inside library
Keio University
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 16
Present policies• Committee to discuss the IR matters
(established since Nov. 2005)– Consists of 9 researchers, 1 official and 1 librarian
• Requesting cooperation from the Departments– Digital theses project– Online Departmental Bulletin Project
• Effective public relations– Presentation to researchers, posters, leaflets, etc.
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 17
For researcher’s understanding• Explanatory meeting to researchers 28 times
– Librarians went to lab to explain– Announcements by posters, leaflets, newsletters– 110 researchers attended the meetings
• Researcher Interview 20 times– Lunch meeting, seminar, individual appointment – Librarians went to researcher’s workplaces to
explain
Good for understanding about HUSCAP.But NOT a cost-effective method and too slow!
1-2. DEC. 2005 meeting at Toronto univ. & Rochester univ. 18
Problems for the future
• Obtaining more recognition by researchers– What is the cost-effective method?
• Cooperating with “Research Achievements Database Hokkaido Univ.”– Is it possible to manage researchers information usin
g DSpace?– Whether to include metadata without full text
Presentation finished