Self-archiving and Mediated Deposit

There are two types of submission method that may be employed within your submission workflow: self-archiving - where an academic, or his or her representative, deposits an item in to a repository by themselves; or mediated deposit - where the academic supplies the item and the metadata to the repository administrator and he or she deposits the item on the acdemic's behalf. Both methods have their pros and cons so it is important that you choose a submission method that is right for your repository. You may find that the adoption of one single method does not suit all of the stakeholders of your repository and that a combination of both methods may be the best practice for you. Self-archiving and mediated deposit are considered in more detail below.

Self-archiving

With self-archiving the responsibility for creating an item record and depositing the file is on the academic (or his or her representative) rather than the repository administrator. This method therefore saves on repository staff time allowing them to focus on other tasks or other job responsibilities. However, the repository administrator is reliant on the submitter to ensure that the metadata created for the item record is correct and that the full-text of the item is copyright compliant. It is therefore essential to provide training for all staff responsible for deposit so that the workflow is understood and a certain standard of metadata creation upheld. As repository staff are reliant on others to deposit items in the repository it is difficult to establish any quality control over the item records that are present. There is evidence from harvested records that where self-archiving is present within a repository there are some inaccuracies within the item metadata. In some instances where self-archiving is used only a minimum metadata set is required for an item i.e. Item title; Publication Date; Author's name. This reduces the level of training needed and encourages academic buy-in to the method. However, a minimal metadata record with limited descriptive fields may effect the hit rate of an item within certain search and discovery services.

A simple repository workflow with no mediation

For the self-archiving method to be successful there also needs to be a strong advocacy campaign within academic schools to get academic staff to commit to this deposit method. Otherwise, compliance and deposit rates may be low. Some academic staff may prefer to self-archive their material within the repository so that they have an element of control as to what material and information is made available. However, other academic staff may recognise self-archiving as yet another administrative task that is being asked of them and simply may not bother. In some instances administrative staff within academic departments may be used to deposit material on an academic's behalf but in this instance care has to be taken as to the wording of the deposit licence that those submitting commit to, as such agreements usually assume the person depositing is the author themselves. Also, as the onus within a deposit licence is on the submitter that they have the permissions of the author and co-authors to deposit the full text and that the item is copyright compliant, it is necessary to have a high level of input from an academic beyond simply providing an item for submission so as to ensure the authenticity of the item.

Mediated Deposit

With mediated deposit academic authors or their representatives simply supply the repository administrator with the original item in its native format along with any available metadata for deposit. It is then up to the repository administrator to convert these into an appropriate submission format; append the correct metadata; and complete the deposit. For academic staff the advantage of this method is that it is far less time demanding for them. For the repository, it ensures that internal standards can be maintained more readily. Advantages can include more comprehensive and detailed descriptive metadata for each item, and with that the increased likelihood of search and discovery services locating the item.

A simple mediated repository workflow

Employing mediated deposit can have significant staffing implications with respect to the scalability of a repository. If a mediated service is staffed by a single individual, he or she may struggle to cope with an increasing tide of deposits in a timely manner, which may damage the internal reputation of the repository. Another issue raised by mediated deposit comes with the deposit of the item full-text. As stated above, the onus for copyright checking and compliance of the item lies with the depositor. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain that the item received from an academic for deposit is the appropriate version for submission and that permissions have been sought from any co-authors before the item is deposited. Consequently, repository administrators may wish to investigate the copyright permissions associated with the item further before deposit. Also, it is advisable to keep a record of the permission granted by an author so that if any copyright dispute occurs when combined with a robust take-down policy, although not constituting a complete legal defence, is likely to demonstrate a responsible approach on the part of the institution for the inclusion of an item.

Combination of methods

As stated above you may find that not one method alone works for your repository. In the pilot phase of a repository project, to encourage academic buy-in, you may utilise a mediated deposit method with certain academics or departments. However, due to repository staffing implications you may wish to move towards a self-archiving method for the long term. An approach adopted within some repositories is to encourage self-archiving but to utilise a final step within the workflow process for repository staff to enhance any included metadata, and to check the correct version of an item has been deposited. With this method the academic is accepting responsibility for the deposited item but a final quality control check is put in place.

A complex mediated repository workflow