DRAFT Scoping Report
V1 – July 2006
Summary of Questions and Recommendations
Academic work flows
Question: How will Prospero repository fit into an academic author’s workflow?
Recommendation: The repository should be set up in such a way as to fit in with author workflows
(appropriate for different disciplines) and to create tangible benefits for authors.
Question: What is the academic and repository environment in which Prospero will operate?
Recommendation: The Prospero repository and associated services should be set up in such a
way as to serve authors based in HEIs who do not currently have access to an appropriate
institutional or subject-based repository and should enable them to self-archive their work (and
where appropriate comply with requirements of research funders).
3. Advocacy and liaison
Question: What advocacy and promotion activities need to be carried out to fulfil Prospero
requirements and how do these relate to other advocacy activities from other initiatives?
Recommendation: Prospero should involve a set of advocacy and communication activities aimed
at a number of key stakeholders which should be designed to work synergistically with other relevant
advocacy activities from related initiatives.
4. Versions and Version control
Question: How will Prospero address the issue of version control?
Recommendation: The Prospero Team should keep a watch on the outcome of VERSIONS and
the NISO/ALPSP Working Group to inform ongoing development The Depot.
Recommendation: The take-down procedure should include a search of Prospero for all related
versions so that all versions of an e-print subject to complaint are removed pending resolution and
possible ‘put back’. (See section on licensing).
Recommendation: Mechanisms for effective version control should continue to be monitored and
explored during the Prospero development project.
5. Licensing and other legal issues
Question: How can the repository manager secure in a licence agreement the rights required to
facilitate self publishing and to migrate deposited content into the appropriate institutional repository
(IR) whilst avoiding liability for any illegal content included within deposited work?
5.1. Parties to the License
Question: Should the repository have a contractual relationship with an institution or directly with
Recommendation: Prospero should seek a depositor agreement from individuals rather than
institutions whilst being aware that its function would be largely to encourage the depositor to pay
attention to her responsibility for the legality of the content that she deposits as it would afford
little protection for Prospero. The repository should adopt some other mechanism to avoid
5.2. Repository management and responsibility as ‘publisher’, or not
Question: Should the repository be responsible as ‘publisher’ of the content and thus liable for
unlawful content deposited therein?
Recommendation: The repository should adopt the role of ‘host’ rather than ‘publisher’, i.e.
should not moderate content and should rely on a ‘notice and takedown’ policy for detection and
removal of unlawful content (see ‘put-back’ policy below.
5.3 The licensing model