DLF Fall 2012: Institutional OA Policy Implementation: The Joys and Challenges

516 views
386 views

Published on

These slides were presented at the DLF Fall 2012 forum by Justin Gonder, Catherine Mitchell and Lisa Schiff (all from the California Digital Library) as part of a working session on implementing Open Access policies. The adoption of an institutional Open Access policy, while a happy event, presents enormous implementation challenges. Chief among these is the development of a simple, intuitive and virtually labor-free system for faculty compliance. One strategy for meeting this request has been for librarians to do much of the work of gathering the correct manuscript version and generating metadata before depositing in the institutional repository on behalf of faculty. On campuses where librarians' time is already stretched thin, this personalized approach may not be feasible. It is therefore necessary to develop semi-automated, self-service solutions to bridge the gap between faculty needs and available library resources.

The California Digital Library has recently been tasked with such an implementation scenario, following UCSF's adoption of an OA policy. We have so far developed a waiver & addendum portal that allows faculty to request these documents without librarian intervention. Our current challenge is the development of a streamlined, intuitive submission workflow that utilizes 3rd-party services to automate processes such as rights checking and file and metadata harvesting. This working session described the policy considerations that have thus far informed our development of a submission and waiver request workflow, followed by a review of our latest mock-ups and demos of our new submission workflow, highlighting successes, challenges and remaining roadblocks. The second half of the session explored the challenges and roadblocks in more detail, focusing on such topics as synching harvested publications with local deposits, facilitating deposit in multiple repositories, providing aggregated usage statistics across repositories, identifying and pointing end users to the publication of record, etc.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
516
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
48
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

DLF Fall 2012: Institutional OA Policy Implementation: The Joys and Challenges

  1. 1. Institutional OA Policy Implementation: The Joys and Challenges Presented to DLF, November 4, 2012 Catherine Mitchell Lisa Schiff Justin Gonder Access & Publishing Group California Digital Library
  2. 2. UCSF Open Access Policy• May 2012: UCSF faculty-led Open Access policy initiative passes the Academic Senate – applies to all ladder rank faculty. [
  3. 3. 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 •Grant of nonexclusive license from of California, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to eachFaculty to thescholarly articles, in any medium, providing that the articles of his or her Regents of UC •CC-BY-NC are not sold, and to authorize others to do the same. o •No Copyright Transfer This policy does not transfer copyright ownership, which remains with Faculty authoring under existing University of California policy. be waived; access may be •License may o Application of the licensedelayedwaived for a particular article or access delayed for a specified will be period of time upon express direction by a Faculty member to the University of California.• The Deposit: o To assist the University in •Faculty provide final version by date of disseminating scholarly articles, each Faculty member will provide an publication electronic copy of his or her final version of the article to the University of California by the date of publication. •Pub will be put in OA repository o •Faculty may instead notify of other OA 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 location be freely available in another repository or as an open access publication• The Mandate o 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 •Faculty require convenient compliance convenient for the Faculy as possible.
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Where will these OA publications live?
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Core implementation requirements • Compliance with terms of UC OA policy • Compliance with publisher requirements • Accurate metadata • Efficient and painless for faculty
  8. 8. How do others do it?
  9. 9. 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?
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. Anticipated Costs• Technical development and maintenance• Harvesting solution• Campus library support• Copyright/intellectual property education/support• Customer/technical support services
  12. 12. Necessary Resources• CDL Access & Publishing Team• Campus co-investment?• Campus co-development?• Campus library staffing?• UC Office of the President support?
  13. 13. Where we are now:UCSF Implementation
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Current Workflow
  16. 16. Where we are headed ManualHarvested Manual waiver/embargometadata deposit request Publisher requirements database Faculty Current correction/approval eScholarship + file upload pubs database
  17. 17. Where we are headed - Harvesting
  18. 18. 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!
  19. 19. 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 holdingsDetermine how to handle the record early on in the process.
  20. 20. 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.
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Harvesting Solutions Need to… 5. Enable a seamless workflow Harvest Publisher Requirements Check Repository Deduplication CheckFaculty AlertFacultyModificationsFaculty Approval
  23. 23. Harvesting Solutions: CommercialWhat we like… What we don’t like…• Robust and flexible • $$$ Requires new funding• Code maintained by 3rd party • Changes depend on vendor• Access to open and licensed responsiveness resources – arXiv PubMed – CiNii* RePEc – dblp Scopus* – Mendeley* – Web of Science* † – CrossRef* British Library* – Google Books
  24. 24. Harvesting Solutions: HomegrownWhat we like… What we don’t like• Customized to fit our needs • $$ Requires additional• Contributing to existing resources or reallocation of community resources existing resources – An extension of BibApp ? • Another system to maintain• Native integration with the • No access to licensed rest of our scholarly sources communication services
  25. 25. Where we are headed – Deposit
  26. 26. Information that will help us guide users Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable• Who are you? 3rd party lookup service.• What’s the name of Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in your article? external locations. Connection to publisher database prevents users• Who did you publish from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most with? appropriate version.• When did / will you Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs publish? to be reminded later.• Did you publish in OA? Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables• Will you make an OA us to harvest metadata and file. deposit elsewhere?• Do you have an Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and identifier for your externally. image credit: CaliSphere article? goo.gl/yCpiD
  27. 27. Information that will help us guide users Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable• Who are you? 3rd party lookup service.• What’s the name of Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in your article? external locations. Connection to publisher database prevents users• Who did you publish from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most with? appropriate version.• When did / will you Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs publish? to be reminded later.• Did you publish in OA? Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables• Will you make an OA us to harvest metadata and file. deposit elsewhere?• Do you have an Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and identifier for your externally. article?
  28. 28. 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*
  29. 29. Tone: What’s the appropriate voice for this service? Easily identifiable solutions Clear path to additional support
  30. 30. What’s the minimum set of questions we need up front in order to provide the most tailored, relevant experiencethroughout the remainder of the deposit process?
  31. 31. Based on the previousquestions, we want to runsome 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?
  32. 32. Example tailored experience Potential to provide a warning if we suspect a waiver or embargo are needed. Ability to pre-fill authorinformation based on login credentialsGuidance on which version to upload
  33. 33. Clear path to additional supportMultiple opportunities to verify and modify information. Interactive feedback
  34. 34. Final opportunity to verify and modify deposit.
  35. 35. Clear information on whatto expect next and possible next steps.
  36. 36. Where we are headed – Waiver/Embargo
  37. 37. 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 @ Flickr goo.gl/2lyzj
  38. 38. Running checks against publisher / publication database. Also a potential tocrowdsource the buildingof this database by storing and verifying common responses.
  39. 39. Guidance on which options to select
  40. 40. Easy access to requested documents Optional deposit
  41. 41. Discussion How to engage faculty Tracking publisher response Conflating waivers & embargoes Harvesting: to buy or to build How to measure success – and for whom

×