From Meow to ROAR: Expanding Open Access Repository Services at the University of Houston Libraries

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe rapidly changing scholarly communication ecosystem is placing a growing premium on research data and scholarship that is openly available. It also places a growing pressure on universities and research organizations to expand their publishing infrastructures and related services. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM To embrace the change and meet local demands, University of Houston (UH) Libraries formed a cross-departmental open access implementation team in 2017 to expand our open access repository services to accommodate a broad range of research products beyond electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). The result of this effort was the Cougar Research Open Access Repositories (Cougar ROAR), a rebranded and expanded portal to the UH Institutional Repository, and the UH Dataverse, which disseminates the full range of scholarly outputs generated at the University of Houston. This article describes the team's phased activities, including internal preparation, a campus pilot, rebranding, and a robust outreach program. It also details the team's specific tasks, such as building the Cougar ROAR portal, developing ROAR policies and guidelines, enhancing institutional repository functionality, conducting campus promotional activities, and piloting and scaling a campus-wide open access program. NEXT STEPS Based on the pilot project findings and the resulting recommendations, the team outlined key next steps for sustainability of the UH Libraries' open access services: continuation of the campus CV service, establishment of campus-wide OA policy, further promotion of Cougar ROAR and assessment of OA programs and services, and investment in long-term storage and preservation of scholarly output in Cougar ROAR.

Maintaining Repositories, Databases, and Digital Collections in Memory Institutions: An Integrative Review

“…Metadata, especially legacy metadata from a previous system, was routinely described as an obstacle to the use of a digital collection when the metadata is messy and nonstandard (Darcovich et al, 2018; Georgieva & Flinchbaugh, 2021; Gries et al, 2018; Kertesz et al, 2020; Rousidis et al, 2014; Waldron, 2017), inflexible (Allen et al, 2017; Fabian, 2006; Fallaw et al, 2021; Lutz and Meadow, 2006; Mannien, 2018; Shepard, 2013), idiosyncratic (Murphy, 2003; Wilkinson et al, 2017), inappropriate for the subject (Greenberg et al, 2009; Rousidis et al, 2014), or incompatible with the hardware and software environment (Darcovich et al, 2018; Klump et al, 2015). Metadata improvements were needed to improve user search experience (Darcovich et al, 2018; Dressler, 2016; Herrera, 2007; Jiang et al, 2015; Lee et al, 2018; Murphy, 2003; Owen & Michalak, 2015; Stolte et al, 2003); support multiple search functionalities (Jiang et al, 2015; Stolte et al, 2003); incorporate metadata from legacy material (Bond, 2006; Waldron, 2017; Zohner et al, 2019); add additional information to make the metadata rich and consistent (Georgieva & Flinchbaugh, 2021; Greenberg et al, 2009; Manninen, 2018; Philipson, 2020; Rousidis et al, 2014; Waldron, 2017; Wilkinson et al, 2017); and to improve interoperability between systems (Philipson, 2020; Powell & Moseley, 2021; Wu et al, 2016, 2019). Interoperability was a particular concern for those working with domain‐specific databases, where there is a need to share or aggregate data with other related systems (Gries et al, 2018; Stigler & Steiner, 2018; Stolte et al, 2003; Wilkinson et al, 2017).…”

“…We additionally categorized papers according to their focus, and found that while many papers discuss sustainability broadly, few specifically discuss database migration: 17 papers in the corpus were primarily about migration, either in the form of case studies of a particular database migration or research about migration (Allen, 2017; Bruns et al, 2014; Choi, 2020; Davis, 2015; Doty et al, 2015; Dunn et al, 2016; Fabian, 2006; Fallaw et al, 2021; Klump et al, 2015; Matusiak et al, 2017; Murphy, 2003; Pierce, 2019; Shepard, 2013; Thakar & Szalay, 2010; Thomer et al, 2017, 2018; Trippel & Zinn, 2021). Six focused on database maintenance in preparation for migration (Darcovich et al, 2018; Dressler, 2014; Georgieva and Flinchbaugh, 2021; Walsh, 2010; Wu et al, 2016; Wu et al, 2019). 39 papers were about maintenance or sustainability of a system separate from migration (Bond, 2006; Dal Pra et al, 2019; Downs & Chen, 2010; Gordon et al, 2015; Greenberg et al, 2009; Greig & Nixon, 2007; Gries et al, 2018; Han, 2011; Herrera, 2007; Imker, 2020; Jeng et al, 2017; Jiang et al, 2015; Jones et al, 2000; Kertesz et al, 2020; Lafferty‐Hess et al, 2020; Le et al, 2015; Lee et al, 2018; Lutz & Meadow, 2006; Madsen & Oleen, 2013; Manninen, 2018; Marcial & Hemminger, 2010; Nagendra et al, 2001; Nie et al, 2021; Owen & Michalak, 2015; Park et al, 2018; Philipson, 2020; Post et al, 2019; Powell & Moseley, 2021; Reil...…”

“…The third category of need relates to the needs of those managing the data. These needs included a desire for more cost effective data storage (Fallaw et al, 2021;Shepard, 2013;Thakar & Szalay, 2010), efficiency in data upload and management (Allen, 2017;Walsh, 2010), and the ability to 'scale up' a current workflow (Madsen & Oleen, 2013;Wu et al, 2016Wu et al, , 2019. Other needs related to wanting their system to be more reliable and trustworthy to users and other archives.…”

“…• Six focused on database maintenance in preparation for migration (Darcovich et al, 2018;Dressler, 2014;Georgieva and Flinchbaugh, 2021;Walsh, 2010;Wu et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2019).…”