VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
JISC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES
Project Document Cover Sheet
PROGRESS REPORT
Project
Project Acronym
VERSIONS
Project ID
Project Title
Versions of Eprints - user Requirements Study and Investigation of the
Need for Standards
Start Date
July 2005
End Date
February 2007
Lead Institution
London School of Economics and Political Science
Project Director
Jean Sykes, Librarian & Director of IT Services, LSE
Project Manager &
contact details
Frances Shipsey
British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of
Economics and Political Science, 10 Portugal Street, London WC2A
2HD. Tel: +44(0)20 7955 6915; Fax: +44(0)20 7955 7454; Email:
f.m.shipsey@lse. ac.uk
Partner Institutions
Nereus Project Consortium (www.nereus4economics.info)
Project Web URL
www.lse.ac.uk/versions
Programme Name (and
number)
Digital Repositories Programme
Programme Manager Neil Jacobs
Document
Document Title
Progress Report
Reporting Period
February to July 2006
Author(s) & project role Frances Shipsey, Project Manager
Date
16 August 2006
Filename
VERSIONS Project Progress
Report Jul06 v0c.doc
URL
if document is posted on project web site
Access
9 Project and JISC internal
General dissemination
Document History
Version Date
Comments
0a
11 August 2006 Draft version sent to Programme Manager on 14 August 2006
0b
14 August 2006 Draft version sent to Project Director for comment
0c
16 August 2006 Final draft version sent to VERSIONS Project Steering
Committee for approval
Page 1 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Overview of Project
Grant Statement
Please confirm that the project is being conducted under the terms agreed with JISC in the letter of
grant and the JISC Terms and Conditions attached to it.
Note any changes to the original award, including any extensions or alterations granted.
The project is being conducted under the terms agreed with JISC in the letter of grant dated 13 May
2005 and in subsequently-agreed adjustments reported in the Progress Report for January 2006.
A further one month no-cost extension to the Project was agreed with the Programme Manager by
email on 16 August 2006, so that the Project end date was adjusted from January 2007 to February
2007.
2. Aims and Objectives
Explain any changes to the original aims/objectives outlined in the project plan.
List the targets set for this reporting period and explain if they have been met.
There are no changes to the original aims and objectives outlined in the project plan.
Targets set for this reporting period were as follows:
Target
Status
WP1: Project meetings
Met
WP1: Project telephone conference calls
Met
WP2: Interim findings report based on interviews
WP2: Develop questionnaire in light of interview findings and
publications list analysis
Met
WP2: Publicise and launch online questionnaire
Met
WP2: Develop scenarios from interviews
Met
WP2: Analyse results (of online surveys) including free text
comments
WP2: Report on findings of user study
WP3: Analysis of proportion of papers available in full text Met
WP3: Project Team and Nereus EO partners provide further
information about provenance and reasons for non-
availability
Met
WP3: Consolidation of list and cross-tabulation with ROMEO
listing
Met
WP3: Analysis of findings
Met
WP3: Report on findings of publications list analysis
WP4: Literature review
WP4: Guidelines for versions
WP5: Workshop of stakeholders and report
Met
3. Overall Approach
Explain any changes to the overall approach outlined in the project plan.
No changes have been made to the overall approach since the previous progress report.
Page 2 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
4. Project Outputs
Summarise progress during the reporting period and milestones/deliverables achieved. Please
provide links to outputs where these are available online.
Progress during the reporting period has been steady though some activities have taken much longer
than anticipated, notably the design of two questionnaires and the investigation of full text availability
of Economists Online authors in six of the project partners' repositories.
The following deliverables were completed during the reporting period:
WP2: the VERSIONS questionnaires were made available through a webpage on the VERSIONS
Project website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/surveys.html
WP2: questions used in the surveys have been made available to Bristol Online Surveys (BOS)
academic subscribers as examples of surveys produced using the survey software:
www.survey.bris. ac.uk . The Project is grateful for the help of the BOS Support Team in facilitating
this.
WP2: Scenarios were written and made available via the Project website and on the Digital
Repositories Programme wiki: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/scenarios. htm and
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scenarios_and_use_cases
WP5: An evaluation workshop was held at LSE in May 2006. The event gathered feedback from key
stakeholders such as repository software developers, metadata experts and librarians/repository
managers on the survey design and on the current thinking of the project regarding possible solutions
to version identification in repositories. The notes of the workshop are available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/deliverables.html
5. Project Outcomes
Summarise achievement against objectives, list outcomes and findings to date, and any interim
conclusions.
How do you see the project developing? Has progress changed the project in any way, and are there
implications for the programme?
What lessons have been learned that could be passed on to other projects or applied elsewhere?
Through the completion of the interviews with researchers in February 2006 and the design and
launch of the online survey which was conducted from May to July, the Project has made progress
with finding out researchers' requirements and current practices, though the results are still to be fully
analysed and reported:
• understanding of different versions - a survey question on terminology used by researchers
themselves to describe different revisions they make to papers and questions on the ways in
which researchers manage and store their own revisions of their work have revealed useful
information about researchers' understanding of this process
• attitudes towards secure storage and open access availability of papers at different stages in
the lifecycle -
• variations in requirements depending on specific stakeholder roles, eg journal editor, head of
department - this should be capable of analysis as responses were received from 67 heads
of department or research unit, 39 journal editors, 25 working paper series editors and 34
officers of learned society or research association
• existing repository use by researchers (both institutional and subject repositories) - survey
questions showed that 33% of respondents have an institutional repository, 43% do not and
24% do not know. Of the 33% who were aware of their institution having a repository, 59%
had placed papers in the repository. When asked whether researchers would place a copy of
a final author version of their journal articles in a repository if invited to by their institution in
future, 81% replied Yes.
Page 3 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
• Current practices among academic researchers in retention of their own authors' versions -
several questions in the survey were relevant here: responses to one question suggested that
91% of respondents do keep their final accepted versions of journal articles permanently.
Researchers were also asked to describe how they manage their own files when revising their
work and to say whether they are satisfied with their own systems - this was a popular
question and should provide some useful tips for researchers for inclusion in the toolkit
Contact with both the RIVER Scoping Study (led by Rightscom) and the JISC Eprints Application
Profile Working Group (led by Julie Allinson, UKOLN and Andy Powell, Eduserv) has been very
useful and has helped to crystallise the Project's tentative thinking about hierarchical
representation and linking of bibliographic records in order to manage different versions. The
Eprints Application Profile Working Group's work on incorporating ideas from FRBR has taken
this thinking forward very effectively.
It is looking likely that the Eprints Application Profile will therefore deal with some of the issues
relating to representation of versions in bibliographic records and that through the Eprints
Application Profile Working Group's Deployment Plan, the Group's recommendations will be
implemented initially by three of the open source repository software development communities.
This development may mean that for several of the proposed guidelines and standards from the
VERSIONS Project it will be appropriate simply to refer to work of the Eprints Application Profile
Working Group.
6. Stakeholder Analysis
Summarise the project's engagement with stakeholders including users.
6.1 Project Partners
The Project has engaged with immediate project partners at Project Module meetings held as part of
the Nereus Consortium meetings as follows:
May 2006, Oxford
In addition there was one telephone conference call held between partners during April 2006.
The jiscmail mailing lists set up for communications with project partners have been used to maintain
contact. A monthly informal update has also been sent to Project partners and this are also made
available on the Project website News page: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/news.html
6.2 JISC
The Project has been represented at the following JISC meeting:
JISC 2nd Digital Repositories Programme Meeting, Warwick, 27-28 March 2006
6.3 Other Digital Repositories Projects and Studies
The VERSIONS Project Manager along with one other LSE Library colleague were partners in the
Scoping Study on Repository Version Identification (RIVER), commissioned by the JISC Scholarly
Communications Group, led by Rightscom, with Oxford University Computing Services also as
partners. This study was carried out from January to March 2006. There was a workshop held in
Oxford in February 2006, at which the VERSIONS Project was represented. Scenarios from the
VERSIONS Project were shared with the RIVER team. The final report is at:
http://www.jisc. ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf
The Project Manager joined the JISC Dublin Core Eprints Application Profile Working Group as a
member during June-August 2006. She attended a Kick-Off Meeting, London, 5 June 2006 and
contributed to the email discussion about the draft application profile thereafter. Early results from the
VERSIONS online survey were shared with the Working Group.
Page 4 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
6.4 Users
The project has engaged with users during the reporting period by means of the online survey.
Responses were received from 464 academic researchers in 41 countries.
6.5 Other
The project engaged with stakeholders such as librarians, other university personnel and publishers
by means of a separate online questionnaire. This attracted 133 responses from over 20 countries.
Around half of the respondents to this survey were librarians/IT staff directly engaged with
repositories. Others included researchers, university senior management, publishers, repository
software developers, data or computing centre managers.
The Project also hosted a workshop during May with invited participants from stakeholder groups
such as the library and repository software communities.
The Library of LSE is represented on the Journal Article Versions Review Group of the NISO/ALPSP
Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles by the Library's Information Services Manager. The
VERSIONS Project Manager reviewed and discussed with the Information Services Manager draft
documents produced by the NISO/ALPSP Group during March/April, prior to the Information Service
Manager's response to the Working Group.
7. Risk Analysis
Summarise any problems that have occurred and any mitigating actions taken.
There is nothing to report under this heading.
8. Standards
Note any changes in the standards to be used and the reasons.
There is nothing to report under this heading.
9. Technical Development
Note any changes in the development approach or technologies to be used and the reasons.
There is nothing to report under this heading.
10. Intellectual Property Rights
Summarise progress clearing any third-party rights.
There is nothing to report under this heading.
Project Resources
11. Project Partners
Explain any changes to the institutional project partners or subcontractors, and any impacts this
has/will have on the project or schedule.
What other institutions or organisations are you or do you plan to collaborate with?
There are no changes to report under this heading.
Page 5 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Page 6 of 16
12. Project Management
Note any changes in project staff or their roles since the last report. Briefly explain any problems or
gaps with staffing and the effect this has had on the project schedule.
There have been no changes in project staff or their roles since the last report.
13. Programme Support
Summarise contact with/influence of the programme, e.g. with the programme manager, support
team, or programme-related activities.
What further support would you like from the programme, e.g. guidance, workshops, etc?
Do you have any suggestions for improving the programme?
The Project has continued to have contact with the Programme Manager and the Support Officer by
email during the reporting period and has found the support to be very helpful.
Attendance at JISC meetings and other contact with the Digital Repositories Programme are noted
above in Sections 6.2 and 6.3.
14. Relationships with other projects activities
Please provide a diagrammatic representation of your project's relationships with other significant
activities, such as other projects (JISC-funded or otherwise), in the UK and beyond.
This is attached as Appendix B.
15. Budget
Use the budget template to report expenditure against and attach as Appendix A. Explain the
reasons for any significant overspend or underspend.
Expenditure during the reporting period is attached as Appendix A.
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Detailed Project Planning
16. Workpackages
Report progress against plan, noting key activities during the reporting period. Explain why any targets haven't been met.
List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why.
Progress against plan (key activities in the current reporting period are in bold). Targets which are incomplete and overdue are in italics .
Objective
Due date
Completion date
Comments including changes to plan needed and reasons
WP1: Project plan
September 2005 January 2006
WP1: Project website
September 2005 September 2005
WP1: Recruit Project Officer July 2005
July 2005 and again
in December 2005
WP1: Write progress report for
JISC
January 2006
February 2006
WP1: Write progress report
for JISC
July 2006
August 2006
WP1: Project meetings
Throughout the
project
July, October 2005,
January 2006, May
2006
There is no July 2006 Project Meeting planned because the Nereus Consortium
agreed not to meet in July.
A progress report and financial report were approved by the VERSIONS
Steering Committee in Oxford, May 2006
WP1: Project meetings -
telephone conference
Throughout the
project
August, November
2005, April 2006
WP2: Objectives for study and
questioning route for interviews
October 2005
October 2005
WP2: Arrange and conduct
interviews
January 2006
February 2006
Last remaining interviews conducted during February
WP2: Write up interview
notes
January 2006
February 2006
Last remaining interview notes written up during February
WP2: Interim findings report February 2006
This target has not been met because the Project Manager turned to design of
the online surveys in order to ensure that the online survey elements of the Work
Page 7 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Package did not drop too far behind schedule. Need to re-schedule this target for
September 2006
WP2: Develop questionnaire
in light of interview findings
and publications list
analysis
February 2006
May 2006
Draft questions went through several iterations and were piloted before
launching the survey. This activity took longer than anticipated.
WP2: Launch and publicise
online questionnaire
March 2006
May-July 2006
This activity went according to plan, though it took place later than
originally scheduled because the survey design took longer than
anticipated.
WP2: Develop scenarios
from interviews
February 2006
March 2006
Scenarios written and place on Project website and DRP wiki
WP2: Analyse results (of
online survey) including free
text comments
May 2006
This target has not been met because the survey itself took place later than
planned and was open until July. This activity will be carried out during August
2006.
WP2: Report on findings of
user study
July 2006
This target has not been met because the survey itself took place later than
planned and was open until July. This activity will be carried out during
September and October 2006.
WP3: Define criteria and
request publication lists
from Nereus Economists
Online partners
January 2006
April 2006
WP3: Analysis of proportion
of papers available in full
text
February 2006
May 2006
This part of the analysis was undertaken from February through May.
WP3: Project Team and
Nereus EO partners provide
further information about
provenance and reasons for
non-availability
February 2006
June 2006
This part of the analysis was largely undertaken by the Project Officer.
Non-availability of full text was not discoverable through this exercise, as
previously reported.
WP3: Consolidation of list
and cross-tabulation with
ROMEO listing
March 2006
June 2006
WP3: Analysis of findings
February 2006
July 2006
Tables produced from the data, exploring availability of different versions
(author final, publisher PDF) and cross-referring these by institution,
country, date of publication (pre or post 1998), and ROMEO permission.
WP3: Report on findings of
publications list analysis
March 2006
Analysis conducted so far forms part of a draft report. This target should be met
by September 2006.
WP4: Make contact with
September 2006 Ongoing
A preliminary list of stakeholders has been prepared and informal contacts
Page 8 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
stakeholders
made as the opportunity arose; feedback has been sought from
stakeholders via the questionnaire and the Project workshop; links with
stakeholders have been created through participation in other activities
such as the Eprints Application Profile Working Group
WP4: Literature review
March 2006
Literature searches have been carried out and references assembled and noted.
Compilation of the review is now underway but not yet complete. This target will
need to be re-scheduled for November 2006.
WP4: Draft guidelines
July 2006
Target has not been met because of delays in completion of WP2 and WP3 on
which this depends. This target needs to be re-scheduled for October and
November 2006.
WP5: Maintain project
website
December 2006 Ongoing
The Project website has been updated periodically with new deliverables,
dissemination activities and monthly informal updates. The website has
been moved to a more secure location, while maintaining the public
address:
www.lse.ac.uk/versions
WP5: Establish mailing lists October 2005
October 2005
WP5: Presentations and/or
papers at relevant
workshops and conferences
January 2007
Ongoing
See Section 19 for details
WP5: Publish articles in
appropriate journals and
newsletters
January 2007
Ongoing
See Section 19 for details
WP5: Organise and report on
evaluation workshop
June 2006
July 2006
Workshop was held on 10 May 2006. Notes added to Project website in
July.
Next reporting period:
Objective
Due date
Changes to plan needed
WP1: Project meetings
January 2007
Ongoing
WP1: Project meetings -
telephone conference
January 2007
Ongoing
WP1: Form alliances with
standards bodies and
stakeholders
December 2006
Ongoing
WP1: Write completion report
for JISC
January 2007
Extension of target date to February 2007
WP1: Write final report for JISC January 2007
Extension of target date to February 2007
WP2: Interim findings report
February 2006
Extension of target date to September 2006
WP2: Analyse results (of online May 2006
Extension of target date to August 2006
Page 9 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Page 10 of 16
survey) including free text
comments
WP2: Report on findings of user
study
July 2006
Extension of target date to October 2006
WP3: Report on findings of
publications list analysis
March 2006
Extension of target date to September 2006
WP4: Literature review
March 2006
Extension of target date to November 2006
WP4: Draft guidelines
July 2006
Extension of target date to November 2006
WP4: Toolkit of guidelines
October 2006
Extension of target date to December 2006
WP4: Toolkit of guidelines on
the website
October 2006
Extension of target date to December 2006
WP4: Propose standards to
JISC
November 2006
Extension of target date to January 2007
WP5: Maintain project website December 2006
Continue until end of project in February 2007
WP5: Presentations and/or
papers at relevant workshops
and conferences
January 2007
Ongoing
WP5: Publish articles in
appropriate journals and
newsletters
January 2007
Ongoing
WP5: Present results internally
to LSE and Nereus partners
January 2007
Ongoing
WP5: Produce presentation
materials for re-use by JISC
community
October 2006
Extension of target date to January 2007
WP5: Evaluate draft toolkit
October 2006
Extension of target date to December 2006
WP5: Evaluate published toolkit December 2006
Extension of target date to February 2007
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
17. Evaluation Plan
Report progress against plan, and note any evaluation results during the reporting period.
List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why.
Identify, as far as is possible, the measurable outcomes from the project that might reasonably be
evaluated one year after the end of the project, along with the metrics that could be used to do this.
Current reporting period:
• Survey of user requirements : size of sample and range of respondents. The number of
responses to the user requirements survey was 597 in total, broken down between the two
separate questionnaires as follows:
Researcher questionnaire
Total responses
464
Break down by role
Professor:
24%
Lecturer / Associate Professor: 33%
Post doctoral research staff:
15%
Student (PhD or other research
degree):
23%
Contract/freelance researcher:
5%
Break down by subject
Economics
75%
Accounting and Finance
3%
Business and Management
Studies
6%
Physics
3%
Other
13%
Break down by country
Austria
7%
Belgium
3%
Czech Republic
4%
France
6%
Germany
11%
Italy
5%
Netherlands
9%
Spain
5%
United Kingdom
17%
United States
12%
Other
11%
Stakeholder questionnaire
Total responses
133
Break down by role
Library staff - directly involved
with repository:
36%
Library / IT staff - technical
repository support
10%
Library staff - not directly
involved with repository:
7%
University senior management 5%
Research funder or quality
agency:
2%
Publisher or publishers'
organisation
5%
Repository software community: 5%
Page 11 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Library / IT standards
development - metadata, OAI:
2%
Library / IT consultant:
1%
Other (Researchers and
students)
20%
Other (Miscellaneous)
7%
Break down by repository
software experience
Note: respondents could select more than
one system
No direct knowledge of any
system
49
ARNO
5
CDSWare
3
Digital Commons
7
DigiTool
3
DSpace
39
Eprints
32
Fedora
11
Opus
2
VITAL (Fedora)
5
Other
10
The number of respondents to the questionnaires was felt to be satisfactory. The response to the
researcher questionnaire was overwhelmingly received from the target disciplines of economics and
related subjects. The response from European researchers was very strong. The respondents to the
stakeholder questionnaire were from a range of library and IT backgrounds, with a slightly higher than
expected number of responses received from researchers. There was a good spread of responses
from stakeholders with knowledge of different repository software systems.
• Publications list analysis: Completeness of data supplied
The key question in evaluating this activity was the availability of data. Reasonably full data was
available from the partners about the publications details of their economists participating in the
Economists Online Project. Only two partners were able to provide full details about provenance of
full text where available. For the other partners' publications lists details of full text availability and
provenance of full text was gathered by the Project Officer by means of individual inspection of the
items. In view of the scale of this task a decision was taken to concentrate on journal articles, which
allowed a full set of data to be assembled for these items. From a total of over 7,000 bibliographic
items, 3,118 journal articles were scrutinised in more detail, according to version of the article used,
date of publication, publisher permission on self-archiving, and country in which the researcher was
based. It was not possible as part of this exercise to assess the reasons for non-availability of full
text. However it was considered that the user survey would address this issue in more general terms
and questions were included in the survey accordingly.
• Results of user requirements survey and publications list analysis: Consensus about way forward
An evaluation workshop held in May provided useful feedback on the survey design and on possible
ways forward for version identification. Evaluation of the results of the survey and publications list
analysis will need to be carried forward into the next reporting period.
Next reporting period:
The draft toolkit of guidelines is due to be evaluated by stakeholders for potential usefulness and
quality. This will be done by circulating the draft toolkit through appropriate mailing lists and within the
VERSIONS Consortium institutions and inviting feedback.
The toolkit of guidelines once published will be evaluated via email, telephone and online survey to
evaluate awareness and satisfaction.
One year after the end of the project:
Measurable outcomes that could be evaluated one year after the end of the project could include:
Page 12 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
• Awareness among the JISC community of the importance of version management and
identification in relation to digital repositories - awareness of the issue by librarians and IT staff
could be evaluated by assessing which institutions have developed a policy on versions of papers
held in their repositories.
• Researchers' awareness of issues relating to versions and usefulness of the VERSIONS toolkit
could be evaluated by monitoring page visits to the web version of the toolkit and/or by survey to
assess awareness of the issues.
• Take up of this issue by stakeholders could be evaluated by assessing which repository software
packages have incorporated version identification and version management features into their
systems.
18. Quality Assurance Plan
Report progress against plan, describe the QA procedures put in place, and any QA results during the
reporting period.
List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why.
Current reporting period:
• The online questionnaire for the user requirements study was given a pilot testing as follows:
Project team and LSE Library colleagues; DRP Programme Manager; LSE economics
researcher. The questionnaire design was discussed in detail during earlier iterations with
VERSIONS Consortium partners by email and at a telephone conference call in April 2006.
The Project team also sought feedback on the final survey design from participants at the
Evaluation Workshop in May. Their comments will be taken into account when analysing the
results.
• The notes of the Evaluation Workshop were circulated to participants for comment before
being placed on the Project website.
• The collection of scenarios was circulated to VERSIONS Consortium partners for comment
before being placed on the Project website and DRP wiki.
Next reporting period:
• The interim findings report on the interviews will be reviewed by VERSIONS Consortium
partners
• The full findings report will be subject to peer review
• The publications lists analysis will be subject to peer review and review by VERSIONS
Consortium partners
• The literature review will be subject to peer review
• The guidelines on versions will be subject to peer review
• The toolkit will be subject to peer review and evaluation
19. Dissemination Plan
Report progress against plan, noting dissemination done, whether you feel it was successful, and any
publicity the project received during the reporting period.
List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why.
Current reporting period:
Dissemination about the Project during the reporting period has included:
Written items:
Page 13 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Page 14 of 16
• Louise Allsop. 'VERSIONS (Versions of Eprints - user Requirements Study and Investigation
Of the Need for Standards)' . In Brief article in D-Lib Magazine (July/August 2006), 12 (7-8),
In Brief. doi:10.1045/july 2006-inbrief. http://www.dlib. org/dlib/july06/07inbrief.html#ALLSOP
• Project website, ongoing
• Two brief items in LSE internal publications: LSE Briefing, May 2006 and News and Views,
June 2006 to publicise the surveys and raise awareness about the Project
• Publicity for the VERSIONS online survey - this constituted important dissemination about the
aims of the project both to the repositories community and to researchers. The survey was
publicised through the major digital repositories and OAI channels as well as to economics
researchers via several key mailing lists and websites, eg Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) Economics Research Network | Announcements | Other Announcements (posted 27
May 2006 and will remain for six months): http://www.ssrn. com/ern/index.html . The survey
was picked up and mentioned by Peter Suber in Open Access News , for which the Project is
grateful: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_05_28_fosblogarchive.html
Presentations:
• Frances Shipsey. Presentation to CAB International staff on Versions of eprints:
understanding researchers' needs , Wallingford, 8 Feb 2006
• Frances Shipsey. Short presentation to Legal and Policy Issues Cluster Session, JISC 2nd
Digital Repositories Programme Meeting, Warwick, 28 Mar 2006
• Frances Shipsey Presentation to SHERPA-LEAP SHERPA Liaison Meeting, University
College London, 29 Mar 2006.
Next reporting period:
The Project will aim to disseminate information about the Project through further written articles and
the project website. In addition the following presentations and paper are planned:
• Frances Shipsey. Versions of academic papers and open access: attitudes and current
practice among economics researchers . Presentation at Open Scholarship 2006: New
Challenges for Open Access Repositories, The University of Glasgow, 18-20 October 2006
• Frances Shipsey. Presentation and paper at 2nd International Digital Curation Conference,
Digital Data Curation in Practice, 21-22 November 2006, Hilton Glasgow Hotel, Glasgow
• Louise Allsop. Introduction to the VERSIONS Project. ALISS Quarterly (forthcoming)
For details of past and future presentations see: www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/dissemination.html
20. Exit/Sustainability Plan
Report progress against plan, noting any issues related to archiving, preservation, maintenance,
supporting documentation, etc.
List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why.
Current reporting period:
The Project website was maintained and updated during the reporting period. The site was moved
over to LSE's main web server as this was felt to be more secure than the Library server on which it
was originally located.
The Project cooperated with the UK Web Archiving Consortium (UKWAC) to give permission for
archiving of the Project website at: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/index.html .
Next reporting period:
There is nothing to report under this heading for the coming reporting period
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Appendix A. Project Budget for July 2005 to July 2006
Template for Progress Reports and Final Report
Page 15 of 16
VERSIONS - Progress Report July 2006 - 0c - 16 August 2006
Appendix B. Relationships with other projects
JISC Other Initiatives
Page 16 of 16
LSE Library
Eprints
Application
Profile Working
Group
JISC Digital Repositories
Programme
Scoping Study on
Repository Version
Identification
(RIVER)
Nereus
Consortium -
Project
Partners
NISO/ALPSP
Working Group
on Versions of
Journal Articles
VERSIONS
Project
JISC Scholarly
Communications
Group
SURF and DARE
Programme,
(through Nereus
Dutch partners
and Nereus
Economists
Online Project)