A presentation of the analysis of a survey carried out by the HHuLOA open access pathfinder project, given at the RLUK conference 2016.

1. Institutional stakeholders
in Open Access workflows
Chris Awre (University of Hull)
Valerie McCutcheon (University of Glasgow)
RLUK Conference, 9th March 2016

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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-
projects/
• Both projects interested in Open Access workflows
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 4

5. 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 Research
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 5

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Academic Faculty / Department
Central research support
Faculty / Department research support
Library
Other
Organisational unit responding

9. Word soup – job titles in this area
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 9
Research
Services
Director
Manager
Administrator
Funding
Policy
Open Access
Advocacy
Librarian
Lead
Support
Digital Scholarship
Developer
Advisor
Head
Co-ordinator
Scholarly Communications
Facilitator
REF
Officer
Publications
Data
Academic Support
Institutional Repository
Digital Collections
Digital Assets
Digital Resource
Research Publications
Information Manager
Planning
Academic Liaison

10. 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 management
responsibility, most usually
between Library and
central research support
20
8
30
1
5
7
Who manages Open Access?
Central research support Faculty/admin research support
Library IT
Academic Faculty/Department Other

11. 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

12. 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
1
4
16
Who manages Open Access funds?
Central research support Faculty/Department research support
Library IT
Finance Academic Faculty/Department
7 jointly manage
the funds
Vast majority of funds
are RCUK / COAF
Very little local funding
reported

13. 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
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
HR/Staff Development
OA advocacy
Now In 2 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
Finance
Academic Faculty/Department
Not applicable
Unknown
OA APC management
Now In 2 years

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 | 14

15. 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 highlighted
as those that will, or should,
be better embedded elsewhere
as well

16. Open Access workflow collaboration – post-
publication
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
OA statistics
Now In 2 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
OA discovery
Now In 2 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Other
OA validation
Now In 2 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
Not applicable
Unknown
OA impact monitoring
Now In 2 years

17. 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
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Not applicable
RIS management
Now In 2 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Academic Faculty/Department
Marketing/Communications
HR/Staff Development
REF management
Now In 2 years

18. 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
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Central research support
Faculty/Department research support
Library
IT
Finance
Academic Faculty/Department
OA in grant applications
Now In 2 years

19. 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

20. 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

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
17
3
16
Open Access in institutional strategy
University strategy Research strategy
Faculty/Department strategy Library strategy

22. 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

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
9
12
33
35
Open Access features within strategies
Financial Dissemination Legal Technical Contextual Community

24. 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
4
11
Materials to assist in linking organisational units
Presentation materials Checklist(s) Good practice workflows
Case studies MoU/SLA template Other
11
14
24
26
33
4
Including OA in institutional strategies
Presentation materials Checklist(s) Good practice guidelines
Case studies Senior manager advocacy Other

25. 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

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

27. Thank you
Questions?
c.awre@hull.ac.uk
valerie.mccutcheon@glsagow.ac.uk