The Twelfth International Conference on Open Repositories, OR2017,Call for Proposals

Call for Proposals



Call for Proposals


The Twelfth International Conference on Open Repositories, OR2017, will be held on June 26th-30th, 2017 in Brisbane, Australia. The organisers are pleased to issue this call for contributions to the program, with submissions due by 20 November 2016.

In 2017 the Open Repositories conference returns to Australia, where the Open Repositories journey started in Sydney 2006. Repositories have come a long way in the intervening years, having emerged as critical systems for managing, preserving and sharing intellectual, artistic and scientific output. As such, repositories have found a firm placing within scholarly processes and are becoming an integral vehicle to moving towards true Open Science. The OR community has established itself as an important contributor in this space, something we would like to emphasise in Brisbane by promoting the community’s ability to always stay at the forefront of development of both infrastructure and good practice.

For OR2017 the theme is Open : Innovation | Knowledge | Repositories, aiming to reflect how the Open Repository community continues to be at the forefront of developments, sharing knowledge, and working as an enabler of scholarship and open science. OR2017 will provide an opportunity to:

  • showcase innovative repository services as well as innovations in functionality and user experience of repository software;
  • introduce innovative uses of repositories, for example to accommodate new types of content, serve new groups of users, or achieve new goals;
  • analyse drivers for repository innovation, including evolving technologies, changes in scholarly communication processes, as well as policies around open access to research outputs at institutional, national and international levels; and
  • explore and highlight innovation in the wider ecosystem around repositories.

We welcome proposals on these ideas, but also on other theoretical, practical, technical, organisational or administrative topics related to repositories. Submissions that demonstrate original and repository-related work outside of these themes will be considered, but preference will be given to submissions which address them. We are particularly interested in the following Themes (Please check the wesbite for detailed description on themes).


Readers of this call for proposals who are familiar with the OR conference series will notice that it is issued somewhat earlier than in previous years. This is done to benefit international participants, aiming to provide earlier feedback on submissions in order to leave enough time in advance of the conference to make travel arrangements for a journey to Australia.

  • By 30 September 2016: Submission system opens
  • 20 November 2016: Deadline for submissions
  • 14 December 2016: Deadline for Scholarship Programme applications
  • 03 February 2017: Submitters notified of acceptance (except Interest Groups)
  • 03 February 2017: Registration opens
  • 10 February 2017: Submitters notified of acceptance to Interest Groups
  • 10 February 2017: Scholarship Programme winners notified
  • 21 April 2017: All presenters are encouraged to register by the close of Early Bird, 21 April 2017
  • 26-30 June 2017: OR2017 conference


Accepted proposals in all categories will be made available through the conference’s web site, and later they and associated materials will be made available in an open repository. Some conference sessions may be live streamed or recorded, then made publicly available.


We expect that proposals for full presentations or panels will be two to four pages (see below for Proposal Templates). Successful submissions to the general track in past years have typically described work relevant to a wide audience and applicable beyond a single software system. Panels in the general track are expected to include at least some degree of diversity in viewpoints and personal background of the panelists. In general, sessions in this track will have three full presentations; panels may take an entire session or may be combined with a presentation.

Relevant proposals unsuccessful in the general track may be considered for inclusion, as appropriate, as an Interest Group presentation, developer track presentation, poster or 24×7 presentation.


The opportunity to engage with and learn more about the work of relevant communities of interest is a key element of Open Repositories. One to two page proposals are invited for presentations or panels that focus on the work of such communities, traditionally DSpace, EPrints, and Fedora, describing novel experiences or developments in the construction and use of repositories involving issues specific to these technical platforms. Further information about applications for additional Interest Groups and guidance on submissions will be forthcoming.


24×7 presentations are 7-minute presentations comprising no more than 24 slides. Proposals for 24×7 presentations should be one to two pages (see below for Proposal Templates). Similar to Pecha Kuchas or Lightning Talks, these 24×7 presentations will be grouped into blocks based on conference themes, with each block followed by a moderated discussion / question and answer session involving the audience and whole block of presenters. This format will provide conference goers with a fast-paced survey of like work across many institutions, and presenters the chance to disseminate their work in more depth and context than a traditional poster.


We invite one-page proposals for posters that showcase current work (see below for Proposal Templates). OR2017 will feature digital rather than physical posters. Posters will be on display throughout the conference. Instructions for preparing the digital posters will be distributed to authors of accepted poster proposals prior to the conference. More information regarding digital posters can be found here.


Each year a significant proportion of the delegates at Open Repositories are software developers who work on repository software or related services. OR2017 will feature a Developer Track that will provide a focus for showcasing work and exchanging ideas.

Building on the success of the Developer Track at OR2015 and OR2016, where we encouraged live hacking and audience participation, we invite members of the technical community to share the features, systems, tools and best practices that are important to you. Presentations can be as informal as you like, but once again we encourage live demonstrations, tours of code repositories, examples of cool features and the unique viewpoints that so many members of our community possess. Submissions should take the form of a title and a brief outline of what will be shared with the community.

Developers are also encouraged to contribute to the other tracks.


OR2017 will also again include the popular Ideas Challenge. Taking part in this competition provides an opportunity to take an active role in repository innovation, in collaboration with your peers and in pursuit of prizes. The Ideas Challenge is open to all conference attendees – developers, non-developers, and everyone in between. Further details and guidance on the Ideas Challenge will be forthcoming.


One to two-page proposals for workshops and tutorials addressing theoretical or practical issues around digital repositories are welcomed. See below for Proposal Templates; please address the following in your proposal:

  • The subject of the event and what knowledge you intend to convey
  • Length of session (e.g., 2 hours, half a day or a whole day)
  • A brief statement on the learning outcomes from the session
  • The target audience for your session and how many attendees you plan to accommodate
  • Technology and facility requirements
  • Any other supplies or support required
  • Anything else you believe is pertinent to carrying out the session


The conference system is now open for submissions. PDF format is preferred.



All submissions will be peer reviewed and evaluated according to the criteria outlined in the call for proposals, including quality of content, significance, originality, and thematic fit.


The OR2017 Code of Conduct and Anti-Harrassment Policy are available at


OR2017 will again run a Scholarship Programme which will enable us to provide support for a small number of full registered places (including the poster reception and conference dinner) for the conference in Brisbane. The programme is open to librarians, repository managers, developers and researchers in digital libraries and related fields. Applicants submitting a proposal for the conference will be given priority consideration for funding. Please note that the programme does not cover costs such as accommodation, travel and subsistence. It is anticipated that the applicant’s home institution will provide financial support to supplement the OR Scholarship Award. Full details and an application form will shortly be available on the conference website. Please click here to subscribe to our mailing list for further updates.

  • Scholarship Programme Application Deadline: 14 December 2016
  • Successful Applicants Notified: 10 February 2017

For the templates and also more on particpation please check and also keep us posted your updates.


Open Access in Perspective

stephenpinfield_300wThe “Open Access in Action” series has explored many but certainly not all the facets of this highly disruptive publishing trend. To put the issues in perspective, and to focus on the resulting changes to the role of academic and research librarians, we interviewed Dr. Stephen Pinfield, Professor of Information Services Management at The University of Sheffield.

Professor Pinfield joined Sheffield in 2012. Before that, he was a self-described practitioner of academic information science, serving as CIO for the University of Nottingham. In 2001, he helped set up the U.K.’s first open access institutional repository, followed by the SHERPA project in 2002. In 2006 he set up at Nottingham the first UK institutional central fund for paying APCs, and has authored open access policy papers for The Russell Group. Commenting on his role as an academic with a technical background, he described his research as “at the interface of practice and theory.”


This feature article is part of our Open Access in Action series, sponsored by Dove Press, which tracks the evolution of important open access (OA) issues through a library lens by presenting regular original articles, video interviews, news, and perspectives. To learn more about how librarians like you are driving practice across the lifestyle of open access, be sure to visit our Open Access in Action hub page.

Library Journal: What are the important differences between those who implement and support open access systems and the faculty members and researchers who use them?

Professor Pinfield: Faculty shouldn’t have to be experts in the mechanics of scholarly communication. They should be carrying out their research—communicating it in ways that are appropriate for their scholarly community and beyond. However, those who provide support, like libraries and IT services, have to understand the research cycle—the processes that researchers go through. Twenty or thirty years ago, librarians had to understand a narrow aspect of scholarly communications: negotiating subscriptions with publishers, storing and preserving collections, and making them available to researchers. Now, librarians need to understand and engage with a much wider range of activities in the research process, in order to provide credible services.

LJ: What are some examples?

Pinfield: Librarians can intervene earlier, encouraging researchers to deposit at the preprint stage, for example. They need to have a clear understanding of the publishing process, and how it may vary from discipline to discipline. They can design workflows that fit the way faculty works—not assume that all faculty have the same requirements and motivations for publishing their research.

Many repositories are designed in isolation from what faculty actually do or care about, creating an unnecessary burden. Librarians have to understand their users, so they can incentivize faculty [by emphasizing] the importance of a deposit [to] increasing usage and citations, for example. Then they can design services to demonstrate that.

LJ: In the article series, we discussed various open access funding models, APCs, Green versus Gold, and the prospect of “flipping” subscription journals to open access. Can you comment on where we are now—and where we’re likely to go?

Pinfield: This is a challenge. If you look system-wide, there’s enough money to pay for APCs—if you look at the whole universe of research funding. The key challenge, of course, is how that happens, and how it affects individual players. The European focus has been on system-wide shifts, mainly because negotiations with publishers happens more at a national level. The U.S. is a very different environment. It’s far larger and more fragmented, so there’s a tendency for large institutions to resist the increased cost implications of APCs. I think that changes will come as we start thinking of the bigger picture for research as a whole. The recent Pay It Forward study points to the possibility of research funders shouldering more of the cost. The benefit of an APC model is that it scales with the funding.

LJ: What is the main resistance to this type of change?

Pinfield: I think the resistance to open access is more on an operational level than it is on principle. When I first became involved in the open access movement, I naively thought we just had to persuade academics it was a good idea and they’d just start doing it. What we didn’t understand then was the level of inertia and vested interests there are in the system. So, we started adding conversations with policy makers and funding entities, who in turn began encouraging more open access behaviors in institutions.

LJ: To what extent is open access adoption driven by differences in academic discipline—such as STEM or the humanities?

Pinfield: Differences in disciplines should not be underestimated. Even within STEM, some disciplines gravitate towards the Green model, while others—like health sciences—tend to be Gold. (That’s not to say that Green and Gold aren’t both valuable. I see them as complementary and interactive in many cases.) In the humanities, there are new models for monographs and open access, so what we’re seeing in STEM may not apply. Martin Eve’s recent book, Open Access and the Humanities, is a good place to start there.

LJ: Let’s get back to librarians. How would you advise them when it comes to open access?

Pinfield: I think these are exciting times for information professionals. It’s an opportunity to be engaged to a much greater degree. As other opportunities for librarians diminish—like the importance of managing large print collections—this is an opportunity to stake out new territory. With open access, we’re now at the stage of how we deliver it, not whether we do so. This puts the focus on the library community.

We’re also thinking about it in a much broader way—in terms of open science and open data, not just open access journal publishing. Becoming more conversant with that sort of strategic vision is becoming increasingly important. Having a professional confidence in these skills will revitalize the library profession. It’s not a narrow, diminishing path, but a wide one.

LJ: Could this be seen as a bulwark against library funding cuts?

Pinfield: Potentially, yes. Collections are still important, but there’s also more emphasis now on delivering services. You can see this now in how libraries are designed—not just as a place to house collections but also as spaces for collaboration, use of technology, and creative activity. That’s all to the good, but it will require agility on the part of the library profession.

Originally posted at

Familiarizing Open Source Seed Concept in India

OpenSourceSeedsThe GNU/Linux, the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movements around the globe and Creative Commons had influenced people to share their creations openly and freely. The BiOS is such kind of initiative which is sharing all its biological innovations openly. Now the same concept of sharing the biological materials openly for public good.

In Agriculture, the seed is the fundamental input and access to quality seed is becoming restricted to people by financially, technically and legally. To overcome this, the Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI) was formed and it aims to free the seed. The OSSI had pledged to make the seed free and is permitting the buyers/consumers to use in any ways they want but asks them not to restrict the others use with patents or by any other legal means.

In order to familiarize/popularize the philosophy of Open Source Seed/Free the Seed concept, the Open Access India and jointly took an attempt to seeds which are almost free of any legal IPR rights. For this as a test crop, Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) has been selected and the excess seeds which were purchased from a farmer by name Undavalli Trimurthulu in West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh for cultivation are being distributed to people for general cultivation or for research purpose.

These Qunioa seeds are being sent to the recipients under Open Source Seeds MTA (material transfer agreement) incorporating the text adopted from The OSSI Pledge. The MTA says “You have the freedom to use these Open Source Seeds in anyway you choose, In return, you pledge not to restrict other’s use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this Open Source Seeds MTA with any transfer of these seeds or their derivatives. If anyone are interested to join the OSSI or share their seeds through The OSSI Pledge in India, they may contact Open Access India, or the OSSI collaborator in India, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.

Open Definition in Hindi मुक्त की परिभाषा

Open Definition in Hindi ( मुक्त की परिभाषा) is published at This translation work is done by Dr. K. Srivally, MANAGE, Hyderabad

वर्शन 2.0

मुक्त की परिभाषा ‘ओपेन’ के अर्थ को ज्ञान, संपुष्ट आम जनता जिनमें से कोई भी इसमें भाग ले सकता है और अंतर परिचालन किया को उच्चतम सीमा तक बढ़ाए।

सारांश:  ज्ञान सबके लिए खुला है कोई भी उसे प्राप्त कर सकता है, उपयोग एवं बदल सकता है और साथ ही उसका आदान प्रदान भी उद्गम और खुलेपन की उपायों के अनुसार ही देख सकते है।*

ओपेन सोर्स Open Source Definition की परिभाषा में जैसे बताया गया है सॉफ्टवेयर के संबंध में ‘ओपेन’ के अर्थ के साथ इसका अर्थ साम्यता रखता है और अंग्रेजी ‘फ्री’ और ‘लिबर’ ‘शब्दों के समानार्थी ‘शब्द है जो कि फ्री कलचरल वक्र्स Definition of Free Cultural Works की परिभाषा में है। प्रारंभ में ओपेन की परिभाषा ओपेन सोर्स की परिभाषा से उत्पन्न हुआ है, जिसकी कुप्पत्ति डेबियन फ्री सॉफ्टवेयर निर्देश सूत्रों Debian Free Software Guidelines से हुआ है।

‘वर्क’ शब्द का उपयोग अंतरित की जाने वाली ज्ञान या विषय का भाग होगा।

लाइसेन्स शब्द का अर्थ उन न्यायिक स्थितियों जिसके तहत कार्य को उपलब्ध कराया जाता है। जहा¡ कोई लाइसेन्स नहीं दिया जाता जिसे कार्य को नियंत्रित करने वाली न्यायिक स्थितियों के रूप में समझा जा सकता (उदाहरण की कॉपी रईट या पब्लिक डोमेईन)

1. मुक्त कार्य

किसी भी मुक्त कार्य को अपने वितरण में निम्नलिखित आव’यकताओं की पूर्ती करनी चाहिए।

1.1 मुक्त लाइसेन्स

किसी भी कार्य मुक्त लाइसेन्स के तहत उपलब्ध होना चाहिए (जैसे धारा-2 में परिभाषित किया गया है) यदि कार्य के साथ कोई अतिरिक्त शब्द जुड़ा हुआ है (जैसे उपयोग की शर्ते, या लाइसेन्स प्रदायक द्वारा आयोजित पेटेंट), तो उसे लाइसेन्स के प्रतिकूल नहीं होना चाहिए।

1.2 अभिगम

कार्य सकल के रूप में उपलब्ध होना चाहिए और जहा¡ तक हो सके एक बार से अधिक पुन: सृजन दर से अधिक न हो और इंटरनेट के माध्यम से नि:शुल्क डाउनलोड करने योग्य हो तो अच्छा होगा। लाइसेन्स अनुपालन के लिए आव’यक कोई अतिरिक्त सूचना (जैसे आरोपण आव’यकताओं के साथ अनुपालन हेतु आव’यक योगदानकर्ताओं के नाम) भी कार्य के साथ संलग्न होने चाहिए।

1.3 मुक्त रूप रेखा

कोई भी कार्य सुविधा जनक एवं परिवर्तनशील रूप में दिया जाए ताकि लाइसेन्स दिए गए अधिकारों के नि”पादन में कोई अनाव’यक तकनीकी अड़चन न हो। विशेष्ता:, सूचना मशीन पर पठन योग्य, अधिक मात्रा में उपलब्ध तथा मुक्त रूपरेखा मे प्रदान किया जाए (अर्थात मुक्त रूप में उपलब्ध प्रकाशिता विनिर्देशों की रूप रेखा में हो जो उपयोग करने पर किसी आर्थिक या अन्य प्रतिबंध न लगते हो) या न्यूनत: किसी एक मुक्त/खुला स्रोत सॉफ्टवेयर टूल से उपयोग किया जा सकता है।

2. मुक्त लाइसेन्स

निम्न शर्तो को पूरा करने वाला लाइसेन्स ‘मुक्त’ माना जाएगा।

2.1 आव’यक अनुमति

लाइसेन्स को अपरिवर्तनीय रूप से निम्नलिखित को अनुमति देनी चाहिए।

2.1.1 उपयोग

किसी भी लाइसेन्स को लाइसेन्स धारक कार्य को मुक्त रूप से उपयोग करने की अनुमति देनी चाहिए।

2.1.2 पुन: विवरण

विभिन्न स्रोतों के कार्यो से तैयार किए गए संकलन का भाग या स्वत: तैयार संकलन, बिक्री सहित, लाइसेन्स कार्य को पुन: वितरित करने हेतु लाइसेन्स अनुमति देनी चाहिए।

2.1.3 परिवर्तन

लाइसेन्स को लाइसेन्स धारी कार्यों के व्युत्पादों को तैयार करने की अनुमति देनी चाहिए और ऐसे व्युत्पादों का विवरण मूल लाइसेन्स धारी कार्यो के नियमों के तहत करने की अनुमति देनी चाहिए।

2.1.4 अलगाव

लाइसेन्स को किसी भी कार्य के भाग का मुक्त उपयोग, वितरण करने की सहमति देनी चाहिए या कार्य के किसी और भाग से अलग परिवर्तन या कार्यों के संकलन जिनमें कार्य मुलत: वितरित किए जा चुके हैं को अनुमति देनी चाहिए। मूल लाइसेन्स के नियमों के भीतर किसी वितरण का किसी कार्य के भाग को प्राप्त करने वाले सभी पार्टियों को वही अधिकार होने चाहिए जो कि संयोग से मूल कार्य में दिए गए है।

2.1.5 संकलन

लाइसेन्स को अन्य विशेष कार्यो सहित वितरित हाने के लिए इन अन्य कार्यों पर प्रतिबंध लगाए बिना लाइसेन्स कार्य को अनुमति देन चाहिए।

2.1.6 गैर-भेदभाव

लाइसेन्स को किसी भी व्यक्ति या समूह के विपरीत भेद भाव व्यक्त नहीं करना चाहिए।

2.1.7 प्रचार

किसी कार्य के साथ संलग्न अधिकार बिना किसी अतिरिक्त कानूनी नियमों की स्वीकृति के उन सभी के लिए लागू होने चाहिए जिन्हे वे पुन: वितरित किए गए हैं।

2.1.8 किसी भी उद्दे’य के लिए लागू करना

किसी भी विशेष प्रयास के क्षेत्र में कार्य का उपयोग करने के लिए लाइसेन्स किसी पर प्रतिबंध नहीं लगाना चाहिए।

2.1.9 बिना किसी शुल्क:

लाइसेन्स को अपने शर्तो के भाग के रूप में कोई शुल्क, रॉयल्टी या अन्य कोई मुआवजा या मैट्रिक परिश्रमिक नहीं लगाना चाहिए।

2.2 स्वीकार्य शर्तो

लाइसेन्स को निम्न स्वीकार्य योग्य शर्तो के अलावा दिए गए धारा 2.1 में सीमाओं, अनिश्चितता या आव’यक अनुमतियों को घटाना नहीं चाहिए।

2.2.1 संबंध

लाइसेन्स को कार्य के वितरण में योगदान कर्ता के संबंध, धारको, प्रायोजकों तथा सृजकों के अधिकारों को साम्मिलित करने की आवा’यकता होगी जब तक कि ऐसे निर्देश कष्टदायक नहीं हैं।

2.2.2 प्रामाणिकता

लाइसेन्स के लिए लाइसेन्स धारी कार्य में किए गए परिवर्तनों को मूल कार्य से अलग नामित करने या संस्करण संख्या डालने या किए गए परिवर्तनों को इंगित करने की आवश्यकता है।

2.2.3 समान अधिकार

लाइसेन्स के लिए लाइसेन्स धारी कार्य की प्रतिया¡ या उससे उत्पन्न कार्यों की आवश्यकता है ताकि मूल के समान्तर लाइसेन्स के अधीन रख सके।

2.2.4 सूचना

लाइसेन्स को कॉपीराईट सूचनाओं तथा लाइसेन्स की पहचान को धारण करने की आव’यकता है।

2.2.5 श्रोत

लाइसेन्स के लिए परिवर्तित कार्यों के अगले परिवर्तनों हेतु आवश्यक रूप रेखा में उपलब्ध कराने की आव’यकता है।

2.2.6 तकनीकी प्रतिबंध निषेध:

लाइसेन्स यदि तकनीकी सीमाएं प्रतिबंध लगाते हैं तो कार्य के वितरण को निषेध करता है या अधिकार प्रदान करता है।

2.2.7 गैर आक्रमकता:

लाइसेन्स को परिवर्तन करने वालों के लिए लाइसेन्स द्वारा अनुमति प्राप्त अधिकारों के उपयोग करने के लिए आव’यक सार्वजनिक अतिरिक्त अनुमति (उदाहरणार्थ पेटेन्ट लाइसेन्स) देने की आवश्यकता है। लाइसेन्स स्वीकृति अधिकार के उपयोग के संबंध में लाइसेन्स प्रदान करने वालों का अतिक्रमण नहीं करने पर भी अनुमति निषेध कर सकता है।

अनुवादक: डॉ कस्तूरी श्रीवल्ली, राष्ट्रीय कृषि विस्तार प्रबंध संस्थान (मैनेज), हैदराबाद, भारत।