institutional stakeholders in open access workflows - rluk conference 160309

Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows

Chris Awre (University of Hull)Valerie McCutcheon (University of Glasgow)RLUK Conference, 9th March 2016

To cover

• Why are we interested in this?

• Open Access pathfinding: e2eoa and HHuLOA

• Contrasting case studies: Hull and Glasgow

• What do others think? A HHuLOA survey on Open Access and research support

• Conclusions

• Next steps

Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 2

Background – why are we interested in this?• Open Access publication is a form of research

dissemination– Hence, it is part of overall research workflow (or

can be)• Libraries play a key role in advocating and

managing OA– How can they work with other institutional

stakeholders supporting research to embed Open Access?

– Is OA a Library responsibility, or an institutional one?

• How important is OA to institutional research development?– How is OA viewed as a strategic driver?


Open Access pathfinding

• Hull, Huddersfield and Lincoln – HHuLOA– https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/hhuloa/

• Glasgow, Lancaster, Southampton, Kent – End to End Open Access (e2eoa)– http://e2eoa.org/

• 2 of 9 Jisc Pathfinder projects exploring good practice in Open Access– http://openaccess.jiscinvolve.org/wp/pathfinder-pr

ojects/

• Both projects interested in Open Access workflowsInstitutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 4

https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/hhuloa/

https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/hhuloa/

http://e2eoa.org/

http://e2eoa.org/

http://openaccess.jiscinvolve.org/wp/pathfinder-projects/



Case study 1: Hull

• Library leads on Open Access advocacy and management– Follow-on from being repository lead for

institution• Open Access policy adopted by University Research

Committee– Managed through Open Access Working Group

• Research Support colleagues supportive, but happy to let Library take the lead– REF Manager fully engaged due to HEFCE Policy

• Best lever has been Associate Deans for ResearchInstitutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 5

Case study 2: Glasgow

• Library leads on Open Access – team drawn from different sections of the library – includes cost management and compliance reporting

• No fancy ‘new’ OA policy - Publications Policy since 2008

• Vice-Principal for Research and Research Planning and Strategy Committee help drive this forward

• Research Support colleagues supportive

• REF Manager fully engaged due to HEFCE Policy

• Best lever – popular one-stop shop - minimal burden for authors


Questions -> Survey

• Different scenarios, different relationships– What is the broader picture?

• Aims– To find out what current interaction there is

between libraries and other parts of the institution in supporting Open Access

– To understand how Open Access is and could be embedded

– To investigate how Open Access is viewed as a contributor to strategies within the institution


Participants – the numbers

• 47 respondents

• 43 institutions

• 13 RLUK members

• 2 US contributors!

• Other– Converged library and IT service– Office of Scholarly Communication (in Library, but

supported by Research Office)• 1 academic – UoA REF lead


Academic Faculty / Department

Central research support

Faculty / Department research support

Library

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Organisational unit responding

Word soup – job titles in this area


Research

Services

DirectorManager

Administrator

Funding

Policy

Open Access

Advocacy

Librarian

Lead

Support

Digital Scholarship

Developer

Advisor

Head

Co-ordinator

Scholarly Communications

Facilitator

REF

OfficerPublications

Data

Academic Support

Institutional Repository

Digital Collections

Digital Assets

Digital Resource

Research Publications

Information Manager

Planning

Academic Liaison

Open Access oversight• 40 sites had an Open Access Policy

• Other– Senior University Management / Open Access

Group / Planning or compliance unit / Nobody!


20 had joint managementresponsibility, most usuallybetween Library andcentral research support

20

8

30

1

5

7

Who manages Open Access?

Central research support Faculty/admin research supportLibrary ITAcademic Faculty/Department Other

Open Access policy

• HEFCE driven – some policies requiring re-writes to encompass this– A few still preparing a policy– Some policies are Open Access, some are more

general• Policy often Library-led, but carried forward or

‘owned’ in conjunction with other stakeholders

• Half are registered in ROARMAP (others plan to be)• 115 UK policies currently registered here


Open Access fund management

• 33 sites have a Gold Open Access Fund of some sort

• Other – Pro VC Research Office


37

20

20

14

16

Who manages Open Access funds?

Central research support Faculty/Department research supportLibrary ITFinance Academic Faculty/DepartmentMarketing/Communications

7 jointly managethe funds

Vast majority of fundsare RCUK / COAFVery little local fundingreported

Open Access workflows – now and in the future• The survey asked about which organisational units

are involved in different parts of the Open Access workflow– Now– Who is likely to be involved in 2 years time



Faculty/Department research support

Library

Academic Faculty/Department

Marketing/Communications

HR/Staff Development

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

OA advocacy

Now In 2 years



Library

Finance


Not applicable

Unknown

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

OA APC management

Now In 2 years

Open Access workflows – Library strengths

• Survey results highlighted the following as key Library strengths in managing Open Access– Advocacy/guidance– APC management– Deposit– Metadata– Embargo management– Statistics– Discovery– Validation– Impact monitoring


Open Access workflows – Library strengths

• Survey results highlighted the following as key Library strengths in managing Open Access– Advocacy/guidance– APC management– Deposit– Metadata– Embargo management– Statistics– Discovery– Validation– Impact monitoring


These areas were highlightedas those that will, or should,be better embedded elsewhereas well

Open Access workflow collaboration – post-publication




Library

IT



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

OA statistics

Now In 2 years



Library

IT

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

OA discovery

Now In 2 years



Library

IT


Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

OA validation

Now In 2 years



Library



Not applicable

Unknown

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

OA impact monitoring

Now In 2 years

System /process management

• Respondents saw an increased role for the Library in managing a research information system (RIS) and managing the REF




Library

IT


Not applicable

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

RIS management

Now In 2 years



Library

IT



HR/Staff Development

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

REF management

Now In 2 years

And at the beginning of the research process…

• Library involvement in getting OA into grant applications is, not surprisingly, perhaps, lower– A research support role– How much does this underpin subsequent

activity?




Library

IT

Finance


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

OA in grant applications

Now In 2 years

How did current arrangements get put in place?• Part of coordinated effort within the institution – 15• Driven by RCUK / COAF / funder policy – 9• Driven by HEFCE policy – 6• Driven by setting up of institutional repository – 6• Driven by appointment of staff member – 6

• Iterative – 3• Organic/ad hoc – 9


What would make OA work better?

• Internal– Academic engagement / compliance – 17– Better IT systems – 12– More staff – 6– Better workflows/internal management – 6

• External– Clarity from publishers – 12– Clarity from funders – 4


Open Access and institutional strategy

• To what extent is Open Access included within institutional strategy?– Yes – 26 (55.3%)

• 14 in more than one strategy– No – 21

• Other places– Guide for good research practice– Principles of Integrity in Research– Information strategy– REF strategy


8

173

16

Open Access in institutional strategy

University strategy Research strategyFaculty/Department strategy Library strategy

Current situation - analysis

• If yes– Committees– Slowly…

– Driven by OA policy– Outcome of

institutional OA Group– Through close working

with Research Support

• If no– Timing of strategy

cycle– In the pipeline

– Not known


Benefits from having OA in strategy documents• Higher visibility – 10

• University awareness / buy-in – 20

• Unsure – 5

• Survey question on what features of OA work well in institutional strategies

• Other – Impact


21

39

912

33

35

Open Access features within strategies

Financial Dissemination LegalTechnical Contextual Community

What would help assist in embedding OA?

• Links between organisational units– 127 responses asking

for something! • Inclusion in institutional strategies– 111 responses


21

27

37

27

411

Materials to assist in linking organisational units

Presentation materials Checklist(s) Good practice workflowsCase studies MoU/SLA template Other

11

14

24

26

33

4

Including OA in institutional strategies

Presentation materials Checklist(s) Good practice guidelinesCase studies Senior manager advocacy Other

Conclusions

• There is a desire for the Open Access workload to be more spread out across the institution– Although Library still the predominant service provider– Desire to be more involved in RIS and REF, but not grant

applications• What does it mean for other stakeholders involved?• How does this impact on Library’s role?

• Open Access is making its presence felt within institutional strategies– Visibility/buy-in is higher, but impact is not yet clear– Key benefits to promote are contributions to open scholarship

and dissemination advantages• Go for it! There is momentum that needs pursuing


Next steps

• Follow-up on materials requested– HHuLOA focus on checklist (not MoU as limited interest)

• What needs to be covered by stakeholders and how strategies can help

– e2eoa focus on good practice workflows and experience– Pathfinder outputs re: workflows / case studies /presentation

materials• Look out for Pathfinder programme dissemination

– Feed back to Jisc re: advocacy to senior managers• The more we share our experiences, the better we can embed

Open Access– Find a way to share what you are doing!– How happy are we to be open about how we are open?


Thank you

Questions?

[email protected]

[email protected]

institutional stakeholders in open access workflows - rluk conference 160309

Education