Institutional stakeholders in open access workflows - RLUK conference 160309
-
Upload
chris-awre -
Category
Education
-
view
248 -
download
0
Transcript of 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?
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 3
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
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 6
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 7
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 8
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 9
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!
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 10
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 11
Open Access fund management
• 33 sites have a Gold Open Access Fund of some sort
• Other – Pro VC Research Office
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 12
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 13
Central research support
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
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
Finance
Academic Faculty/Department
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 14
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 15
These areas were highlightedas those that will, or should,be better embedded elsewhereas well
Open Access workflow collaboration – post-publication
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 16
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
OA statistics
Now In 2 years
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
OA discovery
Now In 2 years
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
OA validation
Now In 2 years
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 17
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Not applicable
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
RIS management
Now In 2 years
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
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?
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 18
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Finance
Academic Faculty/Department
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 19
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 21
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 22
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 23
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 24
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 25
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
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 26
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?
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 27