Friday, 10 April 2015

New versions and editing old versions - what's the difference?

Sometimes you may wish to make edits to an existing record within the Repository. In such cases it would seem easier to edit the existing record than create a new version, but this is not actually the case.

To explain, records in the Repository can "live" in three main areas, which you can see when you click "Manage Deposits" after logging in:

  1. Your user work area, where you initially create the record before depositing it, at which point it moves into -
  2. The under review buffer, where it stays in a "locked" form, waiting to be checked by an editor (who checks things like are details fully completed, do uploaded documents comply with copyright restrictions); if changes are required the editors will move it back into your work area, and if everything is fine the editors move it into -
  3. The live archive, at which point the record becomes available to TULIP, to search engines, and the public view of the Repository. At this point the record is considered the final record, and can't be changed.
But what if you need to change it? For example, something in press has now been published, or you realise the publisher has changed the title of your document.

At this point, it is more straightforward for you to go into the Repository, view the item in question by clicking the view icon (see below), then Actions > New Item, as shown in the screenshots below.

Why is this quicker? Because you then immediately have a new version of that record in your user work area which you can then edit. To edit an existing live record (which is considered the final record), you would need to send an email to the Repository team asking for the existing record to be moved back into your work area, which would slow down the process of editing the record.

The "Stepping Stones" blog entry below outlines why there is no need to worry about having multiple versions of the same item in your manage deposits area, as only the most recently-approved version will be available to TULIP, and only the most recently-approved version will be publicly viewable.

Stepping stones - why not to worry over multiple versions in your work area

A common source of confusion amongst staff making changes to records in the repository is the question "why can't I delete the previous versions of this record?" - the following explains why.

You don't need to worry about having multiple versions of the same thing when you log into your work area in the Repository as this is actually a requirement of the system in order for the Repository to talk to TULIP, and therefore to your Portfolio of Activitiy, staff profile, etc. We can use a metaphor to explain this, namely that the repository and TULIP are on opposite sides of a river, and data has to get from the Repository, over the river and into TULIP.

Each time you create a version of a record you’re creating an extra stepping stone between the riverbanks, and also widening the river – each stepping stone, or in other words each version of the record, is always one full stride apart. If you were to remove one of those stepping stones by deleting one of the versions you would break the path and make it impossible for data to get from the Repository into TULIP, i.e. your record would fall into the metaphorical river.

That is why no-one is able to delete previous versions of a record from their manage deposits area in the Repository. This is italicised as it's important to note there will still only ever be one version of the item publicly available for outside users to view, so you needn’t worry about staff profiles, the public view of the Repository, etc., getting cluttered up with multiple versions of the same thing.

Thursday, 9 April 2015

The importance of contribution

When depositing an item into the Repository, it is vital that all parts of the Contributor section be completed, or the item in question will not be available via TULIP to other University systems like Web Profile Pages, Portfolio of Activity, or your PDR.

Please see the following screenshot:

The ‘Contributors’ section takes its information from HR’s systems. Type in your staff ID and the name parts of the entry will auto-complete from the information in HR’s systems. Please do not then edit the name information – if you do edit the name information the link between your name and staff ID will be broken and the link to TULIP will not work. Please note we may be able to remove this restriction in the near future.

In order for the record to be available to the TULIP system for all Liverpool-based contributors, they will all need their staff IDs present. You can do this simply by entering their name, as the field auto-completes (though be aware it is case sensitive). If you type a surname in, beginning with a capital letter, you will see a drop-down like the one shown in the image above. When you select the name of the Liverpool-based co-contributor, the staff ID will be filled in and the record will be available to their Web Profile Pages, Portfolio of Activity, and so on.

The following process must be undertaken for any items that you import via DOI, PubMed etc. in order to ensure the records are available to TULIP-related systems (profile pages, PDR, etc.). This is because imported records clearly will not contain your staff ID, the piece of information vital to linking your records to TULIP.
1.      After importing the record, go to the “Contributors” section.
2.      Delete the name in the “Given Names / Initials” field and start typing the name, beginning with a capital letter.
3.      The auto-completer drop-down will display – select the appropriate name.
4.      This needs to be done for each Liverpool-based author. 

You also need to set the ‘Contribution’ type on the left side, i.e. Author, Editor. This should be done for all University of Liverpool authors.

The above workflow helps ensure that records you create are available to other systems and won't be returned to you for correction.