Implementing Open Access – BU and UCL

947 views

Published on

Presentation by Jean Harris at Repository Fringe 2014.

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
947
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
40
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

  • Reminding academics to store all versions of papers to ensure compliance.
    Ensuring that academic freedom to publish wherever deemed appropriate is not compromised.
    Encouraging academics to co-operate in uploading files so fewer multiple entries
    UCL OA team grew out of the original Wellcome funding and so the focus is still really on STEM subjects need to engage the whole academic community

    Processing the large number of theses received each month as key part of Registration - 86 theses in April 2014 to be processed

    Theses
    Cut off date of 28th of each month. Have to process theses in timely fashion checking copyright declarations, permissions etc
    Volume of new outputs increased even before big push for the REF
    Deposit on acceptance
    research outputs are uploaded to a
    repository at the point the article is accepted for publication no later than 3 months. Academics :Why not bypass this and go for gold



  • Reasserting role of BUR0 (IR)now technology works
    coaching in raising sights with publication in established journals
    Research often not included in Scopus/WOS but metadata still not accurate.

  • Huge challenge for both institutions
    Communicating the Open Access options so academics can make decisions based on knowledge not timeframe
    Getting workflow established so deposit outputs in a timely fashion
    Constant changes from publishers, difficulty seeing if something is OA no symbol or cc licence
    Giving help at own desk as well as presentations which are often poorly attended.
    Encouraging academic freedom whilst being aware of funder guidelines and time pressures


  • Implementing Open Access – BU and UCL

    1. 1. Implementing Open Access – BU and UCL Jean Harris Bournemouth University LLS / UCL Open Access Team
    2. 2. Implementing Open Access – BU and UCL • Background • Differences • Similarities • Challenges • Mutual support • When the money runs out…
    3. 3. Statistics UCL Total no. students: 28859 UG: 15640 PG: 13219 Total research funding £871.2m (2011/12) BU Total number of students: 17313 UG: 14826 PG: 2487 Total research funding: £120.4m (2012/13)
    4. 4. Publications Management Both use Symplectic Elements to manage publications and eprints for IR. • UCL Library manages OA funding and publications through the Research Publications Service (RPS) and Discovery (eprints). • BU RKE (Research and Knowledge Exchange Office) manages OA funding and BRIAN (Bournemouth Research Information and Networking). BURO (eprints) is managed by the Library. • UCL Discovery (eprints) is supported inhouse v BURO a hosted service.
    5. 5. Publications Management BU-RKE
    6. 6. Institutional Repositories UCL Discovery- metadata only and full text outputs • Total outputs: 317794 (26.6.14) • OA items Full text (green and gold): 16185 Live gold without FT: 6347(as indicated by PubMed OA data) includes theses: 2814 live FT plus 230 embargoed out of 5111 BURO from 2013 full text only • Total outputs: 2831 (30.6.14) • Public access: 2562
    7. 7. Staff support UCL • Virtual Open Access Team Gold: 4 (Manager + 3 staff) Green: 4.27 (Manager + 3.27 staff) UCL Press: 1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/ucl-press/ BU OA funding: RKE 1 Manager + admin support for processing • No fulltime repository staff Rota of 3 editorial staff, working one week in three on outputs received in Review. 1 Repository Administrator .2 1 Repository Manager .2
    8. 8. OA funding UCL OA funding managed by OA Team in the Library • Combination of RCUK, UCL and Wellcome funding • at least 9,000 research pubs p.a • RCUK 2013-14 target: 693 papers Successfully processed 796. BU OA funding managed by RKE (Research Knowledge and Enterprise team) • No RCUK funding • £100k University funding
    9. 9. UCL Funding Headlines • 796 RCUK-funded articles made OA in 2013-14 • 443 Wellcome • 508 UCL Gold (August 2013-March 2014) • Around 1650 APCs paid April 2013-March 2014. • Current level of APC payments as > 2,000 p.a.
    10. 10. UCL funded OA compliance OA Compliance April 2013-March 2014 To 31 March 2014 (closed) Total Compliance RCUK RCUK Gold 677 RCUK Green 119 RCUK total 796 115% WT Gold 443 UCL Gold 508 Total OA transactions 1747 Total APCs 1628
    11. 11. UCL pre-payment agreements
    12. 12. BU funded OA statistics Total Exp. APC £ No. Articles Average APC 2011/2012 20636 16 1290 2012/2013 32529 26 1251 2013/2014 45122 34 1327(to 2.7.14) Totals 98287 76 1293
    13. 13. Challenges for engagement UCL Discovery • Metadata only outputs • Academic engagement • Difficulty sending large files • Furious about how h index is calculated in RPS • Incorrect search settings in RPS • Don’t understand the data harvesting process
    14. 14. Challenges for engagement BU-BURO • 2013 to full text only • Mapping data issues • Incorrect publications display on original staff profile pages • Staff thought BURO no longer existed
    15. 15. Challenges for OA UCL • Advocacy – making academics aware of the HEFCE’s guidelines for the REF. OA team has published new guidance Open Access for the next REF New statement issued reiterating UCL’s commitment to OA and reminding academics that ‘Non-compliant outputs will be given an unclassified score and will not be assessed in the REF’. REF Open Access policy • Engaging academics used to just accepting harvested outputs.
    16. 16. Challenges for OA UCL • Versioning • Academic freedom • Multiple entries • Sheer volume- overwhelmed as UCL wants everything to be OA UCL's policy is that all outputs should be deposited in our institutional repository, UCL Discovery (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/open- access/ref/) • Timeframes- deposit on acceptance
    17. 17. Challenges for OA BU • Advocacy • Academic freedom less of an issue • Academics more used to manual entry of metadata but… • Addressing the fear of having research “stolen”. • Enforcing new directive from Pro-VC Research that outputs in BRIAN/BURO must be considered in appraisal and pay progression.
    18. 18. Shared challenges • Deposit on acceptance • Open Access options • Establishing new workflows • Moving goalposts • Flexible support • Encouraging champions in Faculties • Using the REF 2020 as a stick and a carrot for their research
    19. 19. Mutual support UCL is leading one of the new Jisc Pathfinder project with partners, Nottingham and Newcastle, aimed at establishing best practice in complying with open access mandates Aim: to produce a set of resources that will help other institutions to develop advocacy programmes, monitor and manage institutional publication activity and use open access funds effectively.
    20. 20. When the money runs out… UCL • UCL as a whole supports Green OA, but assists academics to meet their requirements through the Gold OA route. • UCL feels Gold will still be important to science disciplines and certain funding body requirements so that whilst the AAM needs to be deposited on acceptance, many may prefer/ need to go down the Gold route. BU • BU Funding still be available and has full support of VC. • If volumes increase decisions will need to be made.
    21. 21. Grateful thanks • Catherine Sharp, UCL Open Access Funding Manager, for use of some of her UCL Gold OA slides and generous time spent answering questions. catherine.sharp@ucl.ac.uk • Erica McLaren, UCL Discovery Manager, for help with Green OA. e.mclaren@ucl.ac.uk • BU- RKE and other BU staff for information.
    22. 22. Any questions?

    ×