Institutional OA Policy Implementation: The Joys and Challenges

Presented to DLF, November 4, 2012

Catherine MitchellLisa Schiff

Justin Gonder

Access & Publishing GroupCalifornia Digital Library

UCSF Open Access Policy

• May 2012: UCSF faculty-led Open Access policy initiative passes the Academic Senate – applies to all ladder rank faculty.

[

Terms of the UCSF OA Policy• The license:

o For the purpose of open dissemination, each Faculty member grants to the Regents of the University of California, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, providing that the articles are not sold, and to authorize others to do the same.

o This policy does not transfer copyright ownership, which remains with Faculty authoring under existing University of California policy.

o Application of the license will be waived for a particular article or access delayed for a specified period of time upon express direction by a Faculty member to the University of California.

• The Deposit:o To assist the University in disseminating scholarly articles, each Faculty member will provide an

electronic copy of his or her final version of the article to the University of California by the date of publication.

o The University of California will make the article available in an open-access repository. o When appropriate, a faculty member may instead notify the University of California if the article will

be freely available in another repository or as an open access publication

• The Mandateo The faculty calls upon the Academic Senate and the University of California to develop and monitor a

service or mechanism that would render implementation and compliance with the policy as convenient for the Faculy as possible.

•Grant of nonexclusive license from Faculty to the Regents of UC•CC-BY-NC•No Copyright Transfer•License may be waived; access may be delayed

•Faculty provide final version by date of publication•Pub will be put in OA repository•Faculty may instead notify of other OA location

•Faculty require convenient compliance

UCSF/UC OA timeline

• May 2012: UCSF Policy passes• June 2012: Waiver/embargo workflow established

by CDL• December 2012: UC-wide Academic Senate will vote

on systemwide OA policy• June 2013: Robust deposit, waiver/embargo and

harvesting workflows will be implemented by CDL in partnership with campus libraries

Where will these OA publications live?

Focus of this Working Session

• Implementation requirements/challenges• Sample workflows for manual deposit• Harvesting complexities/solutions• Discussion topics:– How to engage faculty– Tracking publisher response– Conflating waivers & embargoes– Harvesting: to buy or to build– How to measure success – and for whom

Core implementation requirements

• Compliance with terms of UC OA policy• Compliance with publisher requirements• Accurate metadata• Efficient and painless for faculty

How do others do it?

What makes this so complicated?

• Multiple data sources:– Individual deposit, along with files deposited with waiver/embargo requests– Harvesting– Other OA repositories/publications

• Various publisher requirements in response to the policy– Waiver demands– Embargo time frames– Publication versions– Variability across titles within a single publisher

• Importance of correct metadata to signify identity of publication and its relationship to the version of record

• Necessity of copyright expertise and local library resources to help guide faculty through the waiver/embargo/deposit process

• Fundamental requirement that the workflow be efficient, minimal and intuitive for faculty

• Others?

And why is it even more complicated at the University of California?

• Consortial service – must be designed and developed for (potentially) 10 campuses

• Desire for a fully automated, centralized workflow that maintains a de-duped repository of pubs that link back to version of record

• Limited to no campus library resources to manage the deposit process manually

Anticipated Costs

• Technical development and maintenance• Harvesting solution• Campus library support• Copyright/intellectual property

education/support• Customer/technical support services

Necessary Resources

• CDL Access & Publishing Team• Campus co-investment?• Campus co-development?• Campus library staffing?• UC Office of the President support?

Where we are now:UCSF Implementation

Interaction with the publishers

• Letters sent to publishers explaining policy

• Publishers requiring a waiver in response:

– AAAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – ACS – 12 months embargo. Publisher’s version PDF allowed (when a policy in place.) – American Public Health Association (American Journal of Public Health) has indicated they may

impose an embargo or reject the policy– NAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – Nature - 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – Project Hope (Health Affairs journal) – archiving not formally supported– Wiley-Blackwell – 0-24 months embargo, depending on the publication. Author’s final

manuscript

• Requests processed thus far:– Waiver: 67– Embargo: 4– Addendum: 13

Current Workflow

Where we are headed

Harvested metadata

Manualdeposit

Publisherrequirements

database

Current eScholarship

pubs database

Manualwaiver/embargo

request

Faculty correction/approval

+ file upload

Where we are headed -Harvesting

Harvesting Solutions Need to…

1. Pull in metadata/publication links from major publication sources– PubMed– Web of Science– CrossRef

Manually entry of publication data should be a last resort!

Harvesting Solutions Need to…

2. Evaluate and augment the record– Check for permissions against a locally

maintained publisher requirements database (Sherpa/Romeo is insufficient)

– Prevent duplication by checking against the existing OA repository holdings

Determine how to handle the record early on in the process.

Harvesting Solutions Need to…

3. Allow authors (or proxies) to – Claim/Reject– Modify metadata– Approve for submission to one or more locations– Manage the harvested publication record– Adjust/refine settings that impact harvesting

performance

Faculty need to have control.

Harvesting Solutions Need to…

4. Integrate with existing institutional systems to ease existing administrative burdens– Promotion and Tenure Systems– Awards and Compliance Systems– HR Systems

Integration = efficiencies for faculty and staff

Harvesting Solutions Need to…

5. Enable a seamless workflow

Harvest Publisher Requirements Check

Repository Deduplication Check

Faculty Alert

Faculty Modifications

Faculty Approval

Harvesting Solutions: Commercial

• Robust and flexible• Code maintained by 3rd party• Access to open and licensed

resources– arXiv PubMed– CiNii* RePEc– dblp Scopus*– Mendeley* – Web of Science*†

– CrossRef* British Library*– Google Books

What we don’t like…

• $$$ Requires new funding• Changes depend on vendor

responsiveness

What we like…

Harvesting Solutions: Homegrown

What we like…• Customized to fit our needs• Contributing to existing

community resources– An extension of BibApp ?

• Native integration with the rest of our scholarly communication services

What we don’t like• $$ Requires additional

resources or reallocation of existing resources

• Another system to maintain• No access to licensed

sources

Where we are headed – Deposit

Information that will help us guide users

• Who are you? Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable 3rd party lookup service.

• What’s the name of your article?

Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in external locations.

• Who did you publish with?

Connection to publisher database prevents users from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most appropriate version.

• When did / will you publish?

Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs to be reminded later.

• Did you publish in OA?Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables us to harvest metadata and file.• Will you make an OA

deposit elsewhere?

• Do you have an identifier for your article?

Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and externally.

image credit: CaliSpheregoo.gl/yCpiD

• Who are you? Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable 3rd party lookup service.

• What’s the name of your article?

Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in external locations.

• Who did you publish with?

Connection to publisher database prevents users from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most appropriate version.

• When did / will you publish?

Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs to be reminded later.

• Did you publish in OA?Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables us to harvest metadata and file.• Will you make an OA

deposit elsewhere?

• Do you have an identifier for your article?

Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and externally.

Information that will help us guide users

Using this information, we might:

• Check against a publisher / publication policy database

• Check against harvested & previously deposited content

• Attempt to harvest on demand

• Pre-fill metadata• Check SHERPA/RoMEO*

Tone: What’s the appropriate voice for this service?

Easily identifiable solutions

Clear path to additional support

What’s the minimum set of questions we need up front in order to provide

the most tailored, relevant experience

throughout the remainder of the deposit process?

Based on the previous questions, we want to run some automated checks:

- Have we already harvested this document?

- If not, is there anything we can harvest (such as metadata)?

- What do we know about the publisher’s policies?

- What do we know about our own agreements with the publisher?

Guidance on which version to upload

Potential to provide a warning if we suspect a waiver or embargo are

needed.

Example tailored experience

Ability to pre-fill author information based on login

credentials

Interactive feedback

Multiple opportunities to verify and modify

information.

Clear path to additional support

Final opportunity to verify and modify deposit.

Clear information on what to expect next and possible

next steps.

Where we are headed – Waiver/Embargo

Help! I think I need a waiver

from this policy!

Actually, our records indicate that a 6-month embargo should suffice.

image credit: Jarred m4r00n3d @ Flickrgoo.gl/2lyzj

Running checks against publisher / publication

database.

Also a potential to crowdsource the building of this database by storing

and verifying common responses.

Guidance on which options to select

Optional deposit

Easy access to requested documents

Discussion

How to engage faculty Tracking publisher response Conflating waivers & embargoes Harvesting: to buy or to build How to measure success – and for

whom