Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Institutional stakeholders
in Open Access workflows
Chris Awre (University of Hull)
Valerie McCutcheon (University of Glas...
To cover
• Why are we interested in this?
• Open Access pathfinding: e2eoa and HHuLOA
• Contrasting case studies: Hull and...
Background – why are we interested in this?
• Open Access publication is a form of research dissemination
– Hence, it is p...
Open Access pathfinding
• Hull, Huddersfield and Lincoln – HHuLOA
– https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/hhuloa/
• Glasgow, La...
Case study 1: Hull
• Library leads on Open Access advocacy and management
– Follow-on from being repository lead for insti...
Case study 2: Glasgow
• Library leads on Open Access – team drawn from different
sections of the library – includes cost m...
Questions -> Survey
• Different scenarios, different relationships
– What is the broader picture?
• Aims
– To find out wha...
Participants – the numbers
• 47 respondents
• 43 institutions
• 13 RLUK members
• 2 US contributors!
• Other
– Converged l...
Word soup – job titles in this area
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 | 9
Research
Servic...
Open Access oversight
• 40 sites had an Open Access Policy
• Other
– Senior University Management / Open Access Group /
Pl...
Open Access policy
• HEFCE driven – some policies requiring re-writes to
encompass this
– A few still preparing a policy
–...
Open Access fund management
• 33 sites have a Gold Open Access Fund of some sort
• Other – Pro VC Research Office
Institut...
Open Access workflows – now and in the future
• The survey asked about which organisational units are
involved in differen...
Open Access workflows – Library strengths
• Survey results highlighted the following as key Library
strengths in managing ...
Open Access workflows – Library strengths
• Survey results highlighted the following as key Library
strengths in managing ...
Open Access workflow collaboration – post-
publication
Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows | 9 March 2016 ...
System /process management
• Respondents saw an increased role for the Library in
managing a research information system (...
And at the beginning of the research process…
• Library involvement in getting OA into grant applications is,
not surprisi...
How did current arrangements get put in place?
• Part of coordinated effort within the institution – 15
• Driven by RCUK /...
What would make OA work better?
• Internal
– Academic engagement / compliance – 17
– Better IT systems – 12
– More staff –...
Open Access and institutional strategy
• To what extent is Open Access included within institutional
strategy?
– Yes – 26 ...
Current situation - analysis
• If yes
– Committees
– Slowly…
– Driven by OA policy
– Outcome of institutional
OA Group
– T...
Benefits from having OA in strategy documents
• Higher visibility – 10
• University awareness / buy-
in – 20
• Unsure – 5
...
What would help assist in embedding OA?
• Links between organisational
units
– 127 responses asking for
something!
• Inclu...
Conclusions
• There is a desire for the Open Access workload to be more spread
out across the institution
– Although Libra...
Next steps
• Follow-up on materials requested
– HHuLOA focus on checklist (not MoU as limited interest)
• What needs to be...
Thank you
Questions?
c.awre@hull.ac.uk
valerie.mccutcheon@glsagow.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Institutional stakeholders in open access workflows - RLUK conference 160309

408 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Institutional stakeholders in open access workflows - RLUK conference 160309

  1. 1. Institutional stakeholders in Open Access workflows Chris Awre (University of Hull) Valerie McCutcheon (University of Glasgow) RLUK Conference, 9th March 2016
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 27. Thank you Questions? c.awre@hull.ac.uk valerie.mccutcheon@glsagow.ac.uk

×