This document discusses the evolving role of institutional repositories (IRs) in light of increasing open access mandates from research funders. It provides a brief history of IRs and outlines challenges they currently face in supporting new compliance requirements. Specifically, IRs were not designed to track publications, link them to funded projects, or manage related metadata and processes. While some institutions have separate systems like a CRIS that can fulfill more of these functions, many rely solely on their IR. The document explores potential solutions on the horizon, like the JISC Monitor project and IRUS usage statistics service, that could help institutions manage open access activities and reporting. Overall, mandates are pushing IRs in new directions beyond their original open access goals
How can we ensure research data is re-usable? The role of Publishers in Resea...LEARN Project
How can we ensure research data is re-usable? The role of Publishers in Research Data Management, by Catriona MacCallum. 2nd LEARN Workshop, Vienna, 6th April 2016
Implementing Open Access: Effective Management of Your Research DataMartin Hamilton
The slides from my session with the DCC's Martin Donnelly at the Understanding ModernGov "Implementing Open Access" event in June 2014. Our talk is all about the support available from Jisc and the DCC to help you manage your research data, and potential future initiatives that might help institutions to handle the move to "open science".
Transforming scholarly communications support at Imperial College LondonTorsten Reimer
Presentation given by Ruth Harrison and Torsten Reimer at the 2016 RLUK Conference in London. We discuss how collaboration between Library Services and the Research Office has transformed Scholarly Communications Support (Open Access and Research Data Management, but also related areas such as reporting and ORCID) at Imperial College London.
Stop Press: Libraries' Role in the Future of PublishingDanny Kingsley
This was presented to the SLA2016 conference in Philadelphia on 12 June.
ABSTRACT: Libraries are moving from curators of bought content to providing access to research or industry outputs. This activity can range from the relatively informal process of dissemination through a repository to acting as publishers - through the hosting of research journals, bibliographies and newsletters to the provision of editorial services and advice. This 90 minute Master Class will look at different models of publishing in the library environment with several examples of publishing activity in different libraries. The session will start with a strategic overview of the need for libraries to actively engage in the dissemination of information created by their organisations. The discussion will cover the staffing implications including how to recruit and train for the required skills sets. Attendees will work through some of the issues that need to be considered if a library is interested in publishing, including some of the legal implications and the different software and technical platforms available. Ideas will be workshopped about ways to engage the institutional community and encourage uptake of services on offer. The class aims to provide practical information to allow attendees to make decisions about what services are achievable to offer their clients, both from a technical and a staffing perspective. Attendees who are currently publishing are actively encouraged to participate in the discussion.
RDMkit, a Research Data Management Toolkit. Built by the Community for the ...Carole Goble
https://datascience.nih.gov/news/march-data-sharing-and-reuse-seminar 11 March 2022
Starting in 2023, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will require institutes and researchers receiving funding to include a Data Management Plan (DMP) in their grant applications, including the making their data publicly available. Similar mandates are already in place in Europe, for example a DMP is mandatory in Horizon Europe projects involving data.
Policy is one thing - practice is quite another. How do we provide the necessary information, guidance and advice for our bioscientists, researchers, data stewards and project managers? There are numerous repositories and standards. Which is best? What are the challenges at each step of the data lifecycle? How should different types of data? What tools are available? Research Data Management advice is often too general to be useful and specific information is fragmented and hard to find.
ELIXIR, the pan-national European Research Infrastructure for Life Science data, aims to enable research projects to operate “FAIR data first”. ELIXIR supports researchers across their whole RDM lifecycle, navigating the complexity of a data ecosystem that bridges from local cyberinfrastructures to pan-national archives and across bio-domains.
The ELIXIR RDMkit (https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org (link is external)) is a toolkit built by the biosciences community, for the biosciences community to provide the RDM information they need. It is a framework for advice and best practice for RDM and acts as a hub of RDM information, with links to tool registries, training materials, standards, and databases, and to services that offer deeper knowledge for DMP planning and FAIR-ification practices.
Launched in March 2021, over 120 contributors have provided nearly 100 pages of content and links to more than 300 tools. Content covers the data lifecycle and specialized domains in biology, national considerations and examples of “tool assemblies” developed to support RDM. It has been accessed by over 123 countries, and the top of the access list is … the United States.
The RDMkit is already a recommended resource of the European Commission. The platform, editorial, and contributor methods helped build a specialized sister toolkit for infectious diseases as part of the recently launched BY-COVID project. The toolkit’s platform is the simplest we could manage - built on plain GitHub - and the whole development and contribution approach tailored to be as lightweight and sustainable as possible.
In this talk, Carole and Frederik will present the RDMkit; aims and context, content, community management, how folks can contribute, and our future plans and potential prospects for trans-Atlantic cooperation.
Data policy must be partnered with data practice. Our researchers need to be the best informed in order to meet these new data management and data sharing mandates.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Open Access in the UKTorsten Reimer
This presentation was given at the Open Access Tage 2014 in Cologne, Germany. It
1) gives an overview of the OA policy context in the UK,
2) outlines how a research-intensive university (Imperial College London) addresses the issues with around the policies and
3) summarises the latest data available on OA publishing activity, in particular issues around hybrid journals.
How can we ensure research data is re-usable? The role of Publishers in Resea...LEARN Project
How can we ensure research data is re-usable? The role of Publishers in Research Data Management, by Catriona MacCallum. 2nd LEARN Workshop, Vienna, 6th April 2016
Implementing Open Access: Effective Management of Your Research DataMartin Hamilton
The slides from my session with the DCC's Martin Donnelly at the Understanding ModernGov "Implementing Open Access" event in June 2014. Our talk is all about the support available from Jisc and the DCC to help you manage your research data, and potential future initiatives that might help institutions to handle the move to "open science".
Transforming scholarly communications support at Imperial College LondonTorsten Reimer
Presentation given by Ruth Harrison and Torsten Reimer at the 2016 RLUK Conference in London. We discuss how collaboration between Library Services and the Research Office has transformed Scholarly Communications Support (Open Access and Research Data Management, but also related areas such as reporting and ORCID) at Imperial College London.
Stop Press: Libraries' Role in the Future of PublishingDanny Kingsley
This was presented to the SLA2016 conference in Philadelphia on 12 June.
ABSTRACT: Libraries are moving from curators of bought content to providing access to research or industry outputs. This activity can range from the relatively informal process of dissemination through a repository to acting as publishers - through the hosting of research journals, bibliographies and newsletters to the provision of editorial services and advice. This 90 minute Master Class will look at different models of publishing in the library environment with several examples of publishing activity in different libraries. The session will start with a strategic overview of the need for libraries to actively engage in the dissemination of information created by their organisations. The discussion will cover the staffing implications including how to recruit and train for the required skills sets. Attendees will work through some of the issues that need to be considered if a library is interested in publishing, including some of the legal implications and the different software and technical platforms available. Ideas will be workshopped about ways to engage the institutional community and encourage uptake of services on offer. The class aims to provide practical information to allow attendees to make decisions about what services are achievable to offer their clients, both from a technical and a staffing perspective. Attendees who are currently publishing are actively encouraged to participate in the discussion.
RDMkit, a Research Data Management Toolkit. Built by the Community for the ...Carole Goble
https://datascience.nih.gov/news/march-data-sharing-and-reuse-seminar 11 March 2022
Starting in 2023, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will require institutes and researchers receiving funding to include a Data Management Plan (DMP) in their grant applications, including the making their data publicly available. Similar mandates are already in place in Europe, for example a DMP is mandatory in Horizon Europe projects involving data.
Policy is one thing - practice is quite another. How do we provide the necessary information, guidance and advice for our bioscientists, researchers, data stewards and project managers? There are numerous repositories and standards. Which is best? What are the challenges at each step of the data lifecycle? How should different types of data? What tools are available? Research Data Management advice is often too general to be useful and specific information is fragmented and hard to find.
ELIXIR, the pan-national European Research Infrastructure for Life Science data, aims to enable research projects to operate “FAIR data first”. ELIXIR supports researchers across their whole RDM lifecycle, navigating the complexity of a data ecosystem that bridges from local cyberinfrastructures to pan-national archives and across bio-domains.
The ELIXIR RDMkit (https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org (link is external)) is a toolkit built by the biosciences community, for the biosciences community to provide the RDM information they need. It is a framework for advice and best practice for RDM and acts as a hub of RDM information, with links to tool registries, training materials, standards, and databases, and to services that offer deeper knowledge for DMP planning and FAIR-ification practices.
Launched in March 2021, over 120 contributors have provided nearly 100 pages of content and links to more than 300 tools. Content covers the data lifecycle and specialized domains in biology, national considerations and examples of “tool assemblies” developed to support RDM. It has been accessed by over 123 countries, and the top of the access list is … the United States.
The RDMkit is already a recommended resource of the European Commission. The platform, editorial, and contributor methods helped build a specialized sister toolkit for infectious diseases as part of the recently launched BY-COVID project. The toolkit’s platform is the simplest we could manage - built on plain GitHub - and the whole development and contribution approach tailored to be as lightweight and sustainable as possible.
In this talk, Carole and Frederik will present the RDMkit; aims and context, content, community management, how folks can contribute, and our future plans and potential prospects for trans-Atlantic cooperation.
Data policy must be partnered with data practice. Our researchers need to be the best informed in order to meet these new data management and data sharing mandates.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Open Access in the UKTorsten Reimer
This presentation was given at the Open Access Tage 2014 in Cologne, Germany. It
1) gives an overview of the OA policy context in the UK,
2) outlines how a research-intensive university (Imperial College London) addresses the issues with around the policies and
3) summarises the latest data available on OA publishing activity, in particular issues around hybrid journals.
The Needs of stakeholders in the RDM process - the role of LEARNLEARN Project
Presentation at 3rd LEARN workshop on Research Data Management, “Make research data management policies work”
Helsinki, 28 June 2016, by Martin Moyle/Paul Ayris, UCL Library Services
Green Shoots:Research Data Management Pilot at Imperial College LondonTorsten Reimer
This presentation by Ian McArdle and Torsten Reimer was given at the 10th International Digital Curation Conference in London (10th February 2015). It describes a "Green Shoots" research data management pilot programme at Imperial College London.
Keynote talk to LEARN (LERU/H2020 project) for research data management. Emphasizes that problems are cultural not technical. Promotes modern approaches such as Git / continuousIntegration, announces DAT. Asserts that the Right to Read in the Right to Mine. Calls for widespread development of contentmining (TDM)
Imperial College London - journey to open scholarshipTorsten Reimer
Talk given at the 2016 Open Repositories conference in Dublin, Ireland. This paper follows the journey of a research intensive university towards making its outputs available openly, discusses approaches outlined above and identifies problems in the global scholarly communications landscape.
RIOXX in context: demonstrating compliance with RCUK open access policy - Ben...Jisc
Part of the Jisc event: How compliant is your institution?
Meeting RCUK and REF metadata and policy requirements, which took place on on 24 November 2015.
More information about the event can be found on the Jisc website: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/events/how-compliant-is-your-institution-24-nov-2015
The Challenges of Making Data Travel, by Sabina LeonelliLEARN Project
1st LEARN Workshop. Embedding Research Data as part of the research cycle. 29 Jan 2016. Presentation by Sabina Leonelli, Exeter Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis) & Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter
Slides from a talk at the annual conference of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e. V. (DPG) in Berlin (18/03/2015). I summarise the current OA policy landscape in the UK, use Imperial College London as an example of how a research-intensive university approaches these issues and then take a look at the (UK) data on the cost of open access and total cost of ownership.
International developments in open access: An overview of trends at the natio...Sarah Shreeves
Presentation on international developments in open access given at the Special Libraries Association Arabian Gulf Chapter 2014 annual conference in Doha, Qatar.
Research Policy Monitoring in the Era of Open Science & Big Data Workshop ReportData4Impact
Workshop on Research Policy Monitoring in the Era of Open Science and Big Data was a two day event, co-organised by OpenAIRE and Data4Impact, with support of Science Europe. The event explored mechanisms for research policy monitoring and indicators, and how to link these to infrastructure and services. The first day was focused on open science indicators as these emerge from national and EU initiatives, while the second day explored more advanced aspects of indicators for innovation and societal impact.
The Needs of stakeholders in the RDM process - the role of LEARNLEARN Project
Presentation at 3rd LEARN workshop on Research Data Management, “Make research data management policies work”
Helsinki, 28 June 2016, by Martin Moyle/Paul Ayris, UCL Library Services
Green Shoots:Research Data Management Pilot at Imperial College LondonTorsten Reimer
This presentation by Ian McArdle and Torsten Reimer was given at the 10th International Digital Curation Conference in London (10th February 2015). It describes a "Green Shoots" research data management pilot programme at Imperial College London.
Keynote talk to LEARN (LERU/H2020 project) for research data management. Emphasizes that problems are cultural not technical. Promotes modern approaches such as Git / continuousIntegration, announces DAT. Asserts that the Right to Read in the Right to Mine. Calls for widespread development of contentmining (TDM)
Imperial College London - journey to open scholarshipTorsten Reimer
Talk given at the 2016 Open Repositories conference in Dublin, Ireland. This paper follows the journey of a research intensive university towards making its outputs available openly, discusses approaches outlined above and identifies problems in the global scholarly communications landscape.
RIOXX in context: demonstrating compliance with RCUK open access policy - Ben...Jisc
Part of the Jisc event: How compliant is your institution?
Meeting RCUK and REF metadata and policy requirements, which took place on on 24 November 2015.
More information about the event can be found on the Jisc website: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/events/how-compliant-is-your-institution-24-nov-2015
The Challenges of Making Data Travel, by Sabina LeonelliLEARN Project
1st LEARN Workshop. Embedding Research Data as part of the research cycle. 29 Jan 2016. Presentation by Sabina Leonelli, Exeter Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis) & Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter
Slides from a talk at the annual conference of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e. V. (DPG) in Berlin (18/03/2015). I summarise the current OA policy landscape in the UK, use Imperial College London as an example of how a research-intensive university approaches these issues and then take a look at the (UK) data on the cost of open access and total cost of ownership.
International developments in open access: An overview of trends at the natio...Sarah Shreeves
Presentation on international developments in open access given at the Special Libraries Association Arabian Gulf Chapter 2014 annual conference in Doha, Qatar.
Research Policy Monitoring in the Era of Open Science & Big Data Workshop ReportData4Impact
Workshop on Research Policy Monitoring in the Era of Open Science and Big Data was a two day event, co-organised by OpenAIRE and Data4Impact, with support of Science Europe. The event explored mechanisms for research policy monitoring and indicators, and how to link these to infrastructure and services. The first day was focused on open science indicators as these emerge from national and EU initiatives, while the second day explored more advanced aspects of indicators for innovation and societal impact.
Presentation investigating the state of FAIR practice and what is needed to turn FAIR data into reality given at the Danish FAIR conference in Copenhagen on 20th November 2018. https://vidensportal.deic.dk/en/Programme/FAIR_Toolbox_Nov2018 The presentation reflect on recent FAIR studies and international initiatives and outlines the recommendations emerging from the European Commission's FAIR Data Expert Group report - http://tinyurl.com/FAIR-EG
The Future of Finding: Resource Discovery @ The University of OxfordMegan Hurst
The report is the culmination of a one-year multi-strand research project, and examines how users of the museums and libraries at the University of Oxford find the information they need (known as “resource discovery”), current practices among other institutions, and trends and possibilities for resource discovery in the future.
Athenaeum21 led the end-user research and needs assessment portion of the project, and then led the synthesis and analysis of the data across all of the research strands, making the recommendations and writing the final report. The report defines the resource discovery strategy for the University for the next 5 years.
The Future of Finding: Resource Discovery @ The University of OxfordChristine Madsen
The report is the culmination of a one-year multi-strand research project, and examines how users of the museums and libraries at the University of Oxford find the information they need (known as “resource discovery”), current practices among other institutions, and trends and possibilities for resource discovery in the future.
Athenaeum21 led the end-user research and needs assessment portion of the project, and then led the synthesis and analysis of the data across all of the research strands, making the recommendations and writing the final report. The report defines the resource discovery strategy for the University for the next 5 years.
The main challenges facing universities and authors in moving to OA for journal articles are achieving compliance, managing costs, and realising the benefits of OA. This session will outline Jisc services that help, from submission of an article, through acceptance, to publication and use. It will show how these services build on existing infrastructure, where possible, to provide a solution that, while tailored to UK circumstances, is more widely applicable.
Organisational Interoperability in Practice at Universidad Politécnica de MadridOscar Corcho
Presentation on EOSC Interoperability Framework in relation to Organisational Interoperability, and how it can be applied to a Research Performing Organisation such as UPM
Horizon 2020: Outline of a Pilot for Open Research Data LIBER Europe
The European Commission is developing an Open Data Pilot. This pilot will look at research data generated in projects funded under the Horizon 2020 framework, with the aim of stimulating the data-sharing culture among researchers and facilitating both the re-use of information and data-driven science.
As organisations with a strong interest in Open Data, OpenAIRE, LIBER and COAR have assessed the current situation and made recommendations for an effective Open Data Pilot.
This presentation was provided by Kristen Ratan, Founder of Stratos and CoFounder of ICOR, and served as the opening keynote for the two-day "NISO Tech Summit: Reflections Upon The Year of Open Science." Day one was held on October 25, 2023.
How to start your institutional repository. How to launch an Open Access journal or convert a print journal to Open Access journal. Presented at the workshop “Open Access: How to improve accessibility, visibility and impact of your research outputs”, December 22, 2008,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
This session will demystify (generative) AI by exploring its workings as an advanced statistical modelling tool (suitable for any level of technical knowledge). Not only will this session explain the technological underpinnings of AI, it will also address concerns and (long-term) requirements around ethical and practical usage of AI. This includes data preparation and cleaning, data ownership, and the value of data-generated - but not owned - by libraries. It will also discuss the potentials for (hypothetical) use cases of AI in collections environments and making collections data AI-ready; providing examples of AI capabilities and applications beyond chatbots.
CATH DISHMAN, CENYU SHEN,
KATHERINE STEPHAN
Although scholarly communications has become more open, problems with predatory and problematic publishers remain. There are commercial providers of lists, start-up/renegade Internet lists of good/bad and the researchers, publishers and assessors that try to understand and process what being on/off a list means to themselves, their careers and their institutions. Still, these problems persist and leaves many asking: where is the list?
Christina Dinh Nguyen, University of Toronto Mississauga Library
In the world of digital literacies, liaison and instructional librarians are increasingly coming to terms with a new term: algorithmic literacy. No matter the liaison or instruction subjects – computer science, sociology, language and literature, chemistry, physics, economics, or other – students are grappling with assignments that demand a critical understanding, or even use, of algorithms. Over the course of this session, we’ll discuss the term ‘algorithmic literacies,’ explore how it fits into other digital literacies, and see why it as a curriculum might belong at your library. We’ll also look at some examples of practical pedagogical methods you can implement right away, depending on what types of AL lessons you want to teach, and who your patrons are. Lastly, we’ll discuss how librarians should view themselves as co-learners when working with AL skills. This session seeks to bring together participants from across the different libraries, with diverse missions/vision/mandates, to explore ways we can all benefit from teaching AL. If time permits, we may discuss how text and data librarians (functional specialists) can support the development of this curriculum.
David Pride, The Open University
In this paper, we present CORE-GPT, a novel question- answering platform that combines GPT-based language models and more than 32 million full-text open access scientific articles from CORE. We first demonstrate that GPT3.5 and GPT4 cannot be relied upon to provide references or citations for generated text. We then introduce CORE-GPT which delivers evidence-based answers to questions, along with citations and links to the cited papers, greatly increasing the trustworthiness of the answers and reducing the risk of hallucinations.
Cath Dishman, Cenyu Shen, Katherine Stephan
Although scholarly communications has become more open, problems with predatory and problematic publishers remain. There are commercial providers of lists, start-up/renegade Internet lists of good/bad and the researchers, publishers and assessors that try to understand and process what being on/off a list means to themselves, their careers and their institutions. Still, these problems persist and leaves many asking: where is the list?
This plenary panel will discuss the problems of “predatory” publishing and what, if anything, publishers, our community and researchers can do to try and help minimise their abundancy/impact.
eth Montague-Hellen, Francis Crick Institute, Katie Fraser, University of Nottingham
Open Access is a foundational topic in Scholarly Communications. However, when information professionals and publishers talk about its future, it is nearly always Gold open access we discuss. Green was seen as the big solution for providing access to those who couldn’t afford it. However, publishers have protested that Green destroys their business models. How true is this, and are we even all talking the same language when we talk about Green?
Chris Banks, Imperial College London, Caren Milloy, Jisc,
Transitional agreements were developed in response to funder policy and institutional demand to constrain costs and facilitate funder compliance. They have since become the dominant model by which UK research outputs are made open access. In January 2023, Jisc instigated a critical review of TAs and the OA landscape to provide an evidence base to inform a conversation on the desired future state of research dissemination. This session will discuss the key findings of the review and its impact on a sector-wide consultation and concrete actions in the UK and beyond.
Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver, Jason Price, SCELC Library Consortium
As transformative agreements emerge as a new standard, it is critical for libraries, consortia, publishers, and vendors to have consistent and comprehensive data – yet data around publication profiles, authorship, and readership has been shown to be highly variable in availability and accuracy. Building on prior research around frameworks for assessing the combined value of open publishing and comprehensive read access that these deals provide, we will address multi-dimensional perspectives to the challenges that the industry faces with the dissemination, collection, and analysis of data about authorship, readership, and value.
Hylke Koers, STM Solutions
Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) launched in 2020 with the objective of streamlining discovery and access of scholarly content in the many tools that researchers use today, such as Dimensions, Semantic Scholar, Mendeley, and many others. It works equally well for open access content as it does for subscription-based content, providing researchers with recognizable buttons and indicators to get them to the most up-to-date version of content with minimal effort. Currently, around 30,000 OA articles are accessed every day via GetFTR links.
Gareth Cole, Loughborough University, Adrian Clark, Figshare
Researchers face more pressure to share their research data than ever before. Owing to a rise in funder policies and momentum towards more openness across the research landscape. Although policies for data sharing are in place, engagement work is undertaken by librarians in order to ensure repository uptake and compliance.
We will discuss a particular strategy implemented at Loughborough University that involved the application of conceptual messaging frameworks to engagement activities in order to promote and encourage use of our Figshare-powered repository. We will showcase the rationale behind the adoption of messaging frameworks for library outreach and some practical examples.
Mark Lester, Cardiff Metropolitan University
This talk will outline how a completely accidental occurrence led to brand new avenues for open research advocacy and reasons for being. This advocacy has occurred within student communities such as trainee teachers, student psychologists and (especially) those soon losing access to subscription-based library content. Alongside these new forms of advocacy, these ethical example of AI use cases has begun to form a cornerstone of directly connecting the work of the library to new technology.
Simon Bell, Bristol University Press
The UN SDG Publishers Compact, launched in 2020, was set up to inspire action among publishers to accelerate progress to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, asking signatories to develop sustainable practices, act as champions and publish books and journals that will “inform, develop and inspire action in that direction”.
This Lightning Talk will discuss how our new Bristol University Press Digital has been developed as part of our mission to contribute a meaningful and impactful response to this call to action as well as the global social challenges we face.
Using thematic tagging to create uniquely curated themed eBook collections around the Global Social Challenges, Bristol University Press Digital responds directly to the need to provide the scholarly community access to a comprehensive range SDG focussed content while minimising time and resource at the institution end in collating content and maintaining collection relevance to rapidly evolving themes
Jenni Adams, University of Sheffield, Ric Campbell, University of Sheffield
Academic researchers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to make data and software FAIR in order to support the sharing and reuse of non-publication outputs. Currently there is still a lack of concise and practical guidance on how to achieve this in the context of specific data types and disciplines.
This presentation details recent and ongoing work at the University of Sheffield to bridge this gap. It will explore the development of a FAIR resource with specialist guidance for a range of data types and will examine the planned development of this project during the period 2023-25
TASHA MELLINS-COHEN
COUNTER & Mellins-Cohen Consulting, JOANNA BALL
DOAJ, YVONNE CAMPFENS
OA Switchboard,
ADAM DER, Max Planck Digital Library
Community-led organizations like DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), COUNTER (the standard for usage metrics) and OA Switchboard (information exchange for OA publications) are committed to providing reliable, not-for-profit services and standards essential for a well-functioning global research ecosystem. These organizations operate behind the scenes, with low budgets and limited staffing – no salespeople, marketing teams, travel budgets, or in-house technology support. They collaborate with one another and with bigger infrastructure bodies like Crossref and ORCID, creating the foundations on which much scholarly infrastructure relies.
These organizations deliver value through open infrastructure, data and standards, and naturally services and tools have been built by commercial and not-for-profit groups that capitalize on their open, interoperable data and services – many of which you are likely to recognize and may use on a regular basis.
Hear from the Directors of COUNTER, DOAJ and OA Switchboard, as well as a library leader, on the role of these organizations, the challenges they face and why support from the community is essential to their sustainability.
CAMILLE LEMIEUX
Springer Nature
What is the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the scholarly publishing community? It's time to take a thorough look at the 2023 global Workplace Equity (WE) Survey results. The C4DISC coalition conducted the WE Survey to capture perceptions, experiences, and demographics of colleagues working at publishers, associations, libraries, and many more types of organizations in the global community. Four key themes emerged from the 2023 results, which will be compared to the findings from the first WE Survey conducted in 2018. Recommendations for actions organisations can consider within their contexts will be proposed and discussed.
Rob Johnson, Research Consulting
Angela Cochran, American Society of Clinical Oncology
Gaynor Redvers-Mutton, Biochemical Society
Since 2015, the number of self-published learned societies in the UK has decreased by over a third, with the remaining societies experiencing real-term revenue declines. All around the world, society publishers are struggling with increased competition from commercial publishers and the rise of open access business models that reward quantity over quality. We will delve into the distinctive position of societies in research, examine the challenges confronting UK and US learned society publishers, and explore actionable steps for libraries and policymakers to support the continued relevance of learned society publishers in the evolving scholarly landscape.
Simon Bell, Clare Hooper, Katharine Horton, Ian Morgan
Over the last few years we have witnessed a seismic shift in the scholarly ecosystem. Three years since outset of the COVID pandemic and the establishment UN Publishers Compact, this is discussion-led presentation will look at how four UK Universities Presses have adopted a consultative and collaborative approach on projects to support their institutional missions, engage with the wider scholarly community while building on a commitment to make a meaningful difference to society.
This panel discussion will combine the perspectives of four UK based university presses, all with distinct identities and varied publishing programs drawn from humanities, arts and social sciences, yet with a shared recognition and value of the importance to collaborate and co-operate on a shared vision to support accessibility and inclusivity within the wider scholarly community and maintain a rich bibliodiversity.
While research support teams are generally small and specialist in nature, an increased demand of its service has been observed across the sector. This is particularly true for teaching-intensive institutions. As a pilot to expand research support across ARU library, the library graduate trainee was seconded to the research services team for a month. This dialogue between the former trainee and manager will discuss what the experience and outcomes of the secondment were from different perspectives. The conversation will also explore the exposure Library and Information Studies students have to research services throughout their degree.
TIM FELLOWS & EMILY WILD, Jisc
Octopus.ac is a UKRI funded research publishing model, designed to promote best practice. Intended to sit alongside journals, Octopus provides a space for researcher collaboration, recording work in detail, and receiving feedback from others, allowing journals to focus on narrative.
The platform removes existing barriers to publishing. It’s an entirely free, open space for researchers, without editorial and pre-publication peer review processes. The only requirement for authors is a valid ORCiD ID. Without barriers, Octopus must provide feedback mechanisms to ensure the community can self-moderate. During this session, we’ll explore Octopus’ aims to foster a collaborative environment and incentivise quality.
David Parker, Publisher and Founder, Lived Places Publishing
Dr. Kadian Pow, Lecturer in Sociology and Black Studies & LPP Author, Birmingham City University
Natasha Edmonds, Director, Publisher and Industry Strategy, Clarivate
Library patrons want to search for and locate authors by particular identity markers, such as gender identification, country of origin, sexual orientation, nature of disability, and the many intersectional points that allow an author to express a point-of-view. Artificial Intelligence, skilled web researchers, and data scientists in general struggle to achieve accuracy on single identity markers, such as gender. And what right does anybody have to affix identity metadata to an author other than the author theirselves? And what of the risks in disseminating author identity metadata in electronic distribution platforms and in library catalog systems? Can a "fully informed" author even imagine all the possible misuses of their identity metadata?
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community (20)
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
We all have good and bad thoughts from time to time and situation to situation. We are bombarded daily with spiraling thoughts(both negative and positive) creating all-consuming feel , making us difficult to manage with associated suffering. Good thoughts are like our Mob Signal (Positive thought) amidst noise(negative thought) in the atmosphere. Negative thoughts like noise outweigh positive thoughts. These thoughts often create unwanted confusion, trouble, stress and frustration in our mind as well as chaos in our physical world. Negative thoughts are also known as “distorted thinking”.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
2. CHAPTER ONE : A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE
INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY
What; that name; how; software; beginnings; early problems
CHAPTER TWO : THE PUBLICATION STORE
CHAPTER THREE : THE HAVES AND THE HAVE
NOTS
CHAPTER FOUR: FUNDERS, MANDATES AND
COMPLIANCE
RCUK, Horizon 2020, Wellcome/COAF, Post-2104 REF; data; the
challenges
CHAPTER FIVE: HELP ON THE HORIZON
4. CHAPTER ONE : A BRIEF HISTORY OF
THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY
5. WHAT IS AN INSTITUTIONAL
REPOSITORY?
“A University’s Research Outputs freely available on the web”
- me
6. WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE?
Someone has to add each research output to the IR.
Depending who the above, someone will need to check the
copyright of the full text output, and check the metadata.
7.
8.
9. A BRIEF HISTORY
2001 : Budapest Open Access Initiative
2007 : general adoption of IRs
16. Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
Title :
Authors :
Date :
Journal :
17. THE PUBLICATION STORE
The central place for holding and providing research outputs
But still not very complete
But by how much?
18. Salo, Dorothea. "Innkeeper at the
Roach Motel." Library Trends 57:2 (Fall
2008).
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/22088
21. The Haves
A CRIS and other systems which
manage publications and research.
Will choose the most appropriate
system for storing information.
Other systems often already link
outputs to projects, departments
and people.
CRIS often provide easy way to
add research (harvesting from WoS
and Scopus)
Feed in to the IR
Have Nots
Only the IR for holding research
outputs.
Need the IR to adapt to meet all
metadata and process needs
around publications. REF, Funders.
Need to link outputs to funded
projects.
IR needs to do things it was not
designed to do.
23. THE FINCH REPORT
“The 'Finch' report - Dame Janet Finch chaired an independent working
group on open access. The group's report, published in June 2012, supported
the case for open access publishing through a balanced programme of
action.
The report recognised the need for different channels to communicate
research results, but recommended support for the 'gold' route in particular.”
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/oa/
24. THE FINCH REPORT
“Government - The Government accepted all recommendations in the Finch
report. In its formal response it has asked the four UK higher education
funding bodies and the Research Councils to put the recommendations into
practice by working with universities, the research and publishing
communities. “
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/oa/
25. IMPLEMENTING RCUK OA POLICY
• How to turn RCUK policy into a University Policy and procedure?
• How to allocate the funds? (if any)
• How to track and monitor, in particular so we can report our compliance
back?
• And how to disseminate all those to researchers?
• Who allocates? Who authorises? Who checks? Who reports? Who
disseminates? Who supports? (who decides all these?)
• What data to collect, and where to store it?
29. COMPLIANCE REPORTING
• The number of peer‐reviewed research papers arising from
research council funded research that have been published by
researchers within that institution.
• Of these research council funded papers, the number that are
compliant with the RCUK policy on Open Access by:
• a. The gold route
• b. The green route.
• And the number which have been published in a journal which
is not compliant with the RCUK policy on Open Access.
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/ComplianceMonitoring.pdf
Target 45% compliance in the first year
30. ONE: ACADEMICS
CONTACT US
DURING
PUBLICATION
Normally a little later than we’d like.
Sometimes already committed to Gold
New world for academics, library,
publishers and finance systems
TWO: SEARCHING
FOR SUSSEX
RCUK- FUNDED
WORK
Used Scopus and other databases to
search for PI at Sussex who have
recently published.
If output was from funded research:
Either retrospectively make it green if
possible.
Or at least we know it exists and is
non-compliant (crucial for reporting)
Time intensive
31. • Europe Horizon 2020
• Wellcome Trust
• Charities Open Access Fund (COAF)
• All with different requirements
• And then we have…
Mandates : like buses
RCUK is not alone.
33. REF 2020 OPEN ACCESS
Journal articles and conference papers submitted to the REF
2020 with an acceptance date of 1 April 2016 or later will have to
be available as Open Access with a maximum embargo date of 12
or 24 months (depending on subject) after acceptance.
The authors accepted version will need to be deposited into a
repository within three months of acceptance for publication. That
means choosing a journal that complies, and also implementing it,
by uploading the article onto the IR or other repository within three
months.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2014/201407/HEFCE2014_07.pdf
34. RESEARCH DATA
Broadly: funders require researchers to plan the management
of their data, and to make it accessible.
Encouraging making it Open, though mostly not yet
mandated.
35. RESEARCH DATA
Existing
Repository
External
service
Separate data
repository
Subject data
Repository
Local
storage
Specialist
Archival
system
Cloud
Storage
Data
Registry
37. THE ISSUES
• Policy (with others); develop procedures; create websites and support
materials; engage with academics; report to managers; look in to changes
in to the IR; support; check and add metadata; search for publications we
don’t know about
• Staffing has (mostly) not adapted to these new requirements, let along
those in the pipeline (REF) – staff still doing the same jobs before this
supporting researchers.
• Software hasn’t adapted. UK specific issues; software is global. Don’t
want to re-invent the wheel, especially with risk of getting it wrong.
• Doesn’t fit naturally in to University structure. Requires all Schools and
researchers to comply
38. 31 potential extra fields to Eprints
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dg_3bN9CNzLf5OQUefonddBpsYJzdXFfO1Q9W8oi3F8/edit#gid=816106069
42. JISC MONITOR
Jisc Monitor is a 12-month project exploring whether a user-centred, shared
national service could potentially help institutions to manage their OA activity
effectively. It complements UK projects such as Open Mirror, and others by
HEFCE and the research councils, attempting to scope and understand the
issues around OA reporting and work up some practical solutions.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/monitoring-and-shaping-the-transition-to-open-access-
05-nov-2014
46. • Institutional Repositories need to adapt
to new requirements and demands. They
haven’t yet.
• However, those with alternative systems
such as a CRIS, may not find this to be
true.
• Universities have not yet put in place the
procedures and resources to support
these new requirements. Some have not
even started to plan for this.
• Many Universities considering how to
support open data, and/or a data registry
• New services may help with these new
requirements
• Mandates, as well as pushing the IR in
new directions, may help it to go back to
its OA roots
Summary
(with thanks to ukcorr for useful
comments)
Note: notes were added to presentation after the talk.
http://www.uksg.org/institutionalrepository
Institutional Repositories have grown in importance over the last 10 years to offer a core University and Library service, however, their role is developing faster now than it has ever done. Funder Open Access requirements, internal reporting, research data. Ref2020 and more are increasing the demands on the traditional repository, putting pressure on staff resources and challenging the underlying software.
This webinar will outline these issues as well as look at how the needs and use of repositories may change in the future.
Date: Thursday 27 November 2014
Time: 1300 GMT
Duration: 45 minutes including Q&A (up to 60 minutes maximum if there is sufficient demand for an extended Q&A)
SPEAKER:
Chris Keene, Technical Development Manager, University of Sussex Library
UK focus, as the politics and requirements of each country vary.
Will occasionally talk about just Sussex, where I’m based.
I won't dwell on the technical elements, they’re not particularly important. The issue instead was one of awareness and engagement.
However I will give a brief outline of what is involved in adding items to an IR, particularly for those who have never used one.
Items are normally added by the academic, or their assistant, or someone in the library. It will vary from University to University. For example, here at Sussex we don’t add records in the Library, except for theses. So it’s down to the researcher, or someone in their School who can support them.
Once submitted, someone in the library will check the metadata and copyright and make the record live. For a journal article, checking the copyright involves checking SHERPA Romeo. Technically, the source of truth is the CTA (copyright transfer agreement) the academic signs with the publisher, but as the University almost certainly doesn’t have access to it we rely on SHERPA Romeo to provide a generic version of the CTA for that publisher. For conferences and book chapters, it is a whole lot more complex. Those with the luxury of staff time may choose to write to the publisher.
Once the metadata is checked and any uploaded file is given restricted access if copyright dictates, the record can become live. Most software by default locks the record at this point, which can be a source of irritation to academics who take offense that they can’t edit the records of their own outputs, something which I can understand.
In the UK, the most popular software package is Eprints, followed by Dspace, Fedora and a handful of others.
I’m not going to give a full blown history, but will focus on two dates. The first is 2001, the date of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which resulted in a statement of OA principles. In 2002 this was opened up for others to sign. Software was developed and made available around this (Eprints 1999, Dspace 2002, Fedora 2003) and early adopters launched a repository.
By 2007 many Universities had an IR, including most which describe themselves as Research Intensive.
On the face of it, adding a research output to an IR was a no brainer.
(thanks to the librarian who agreed I could use this photo of them!)
A win win for all.
Academics got increased exposure of their work, a greater chance of being read (cited?) by other researchers and by the wider public, such as schools and those in developing countries - the warm feeling that doing that provides; statistics; being able to access their own research in the future. Plus - access to research by others in an IR which they would otherwise not have access to.
For the University: linking the research to their name (something easily missed once the research is in a journal, the media will often report ‘the research published in The Lancet today says that ...’), it will help with strategic goals of knowledge exchange and sharing with the community and may even help foster new relationships. Universities can also see in one place the research they are producing.
And of course for the wider, internet connected, world there are benefits in terms of access.
All this from ten minutes work adding the item to a IR. What’s not to love? Especially considering the amount of admin required to get an item published in the first place, relatively speaking this isn’t much at all.
In some ways, I can see why take up was not good. Academics were and are under pressure regarding student admissions, the experience of current students, the NSS, research funding etc. Doing something ‘nice’ such as putting their research online was not in the forefront of their mind. And even when it was, it meant learning a new system, finding files, asking for help (and the fear of looking stupid), and did they really want their draft versions visible to all?
So a key issue was getting academics to use it. Another was resourcing (though it would probably vary for different universities). Certainly we found, in a world where academics wanted more access to journals and our budget was going up by less than journal inflation, and students wanted more books needed for their course and opening hours, it was not just hard to argue for resources for the IR, it would be politically unwise. ‘Why are you spending money on this when you want more on the core services you should deliver?’ Showing we spent money on marketing and supporting an IR may not help our case.
This chapter starts with what may seem like a bit of a tangent.
It seems a fairly basic need for an organisation to be able to quantify what it does; what its outputs are.
Universities do two core things: teaching and research. For teaching, the outputs are quite clear, crudely put: a university will know exactly how many students graduated with degrees.
For research, it surprises me that most Universities really didn’t have a way to track the research outputs they were creating. For Research funding, of course, they had a much clearer idea of the money coming in, and out, to fund their research activity, but not what was actually being produced.
Meanwhile, during the 2000s, academics were increasingly having to produce lists of their research outputs: for new web profiles, for funding bids, for the RAE and internal reports for their department or faculty.
This was an opportunity for the IRs.
I said earlier that the key concept of the IR was uploading a Research Output to the web.
A file uploaded on its own isn’t that useful, so some details about the research output would be added alongside it.
This information, bibliographic data, could be used as one central place to hold information about a University’s Research outputs.
For a number of repositories (the proportion may be larger in the UK than other countries) the metadata become of equal or even greater importance than the Open Access. IRs could end up with a majority of ‘metadata only’ records. OA was still encouraged, and welcomed, but the focus had moved.
Just like OA, the benefits seems obvious and a win win for all. Academics wouldn’t need to fill out their research activity again and again. Deans and PVCs could see what their School and University was producing. They could also see which researchers were producing high levels of outputs, and which ones less so. All from a system that was designed to hold bibliographic data.
However, again, take up and engagement mostly did not really happen. It varied from University to University, but the outputs in the IR nowhere near represented the actual number of outputs from the University. Or at least we had to presume so, there being no single source to find the actual number of outputs a University produces (Web of Science, and in particular Scopus, help in this area, but neither tracks all the journals our researchers publish in).
Around 2010 a new product started to appear at some Universities: The CRIS. (Common Research Information System).
Broadly speaking A CRIS manages much of the administrative research process. They can often pull in publication output information for external sources such as WoS and Scopus, this helps make adding outputs as easy as possible, though doesn’t include all outputs, especially in some subject areas.
As shown by the diagram, a system such as a CRIS will often be connected to the IR. Normally the CRIS feeds publication information into the IR, for items with a full text item. Hence the IR becomes something as it was originally envisaged: open access research on the web.
We shall see in a moment that there is an increasing need to capture and report on information around publication outputs. Universities can be divided into two groups, those with a research system such as a CRIS or otherwise, and those who do not, and hence have to rely on the IR to adapt to the various requirements. It’s important to note these two groups as they will often had different demands on the software and future development.
The was the start of quite a fast process the led to a Government response a month later fully backing the report and tasking RCUK and HEFCE with adopting it. In the same month RCUK announced its new Open Access policy.
The RCUK policy mandated that all peer-reviewed research papers funded by the Research Councils should be published in a OA-compliant journal, with requirements around length of embargo for Green OA and a CC-BY licence for Gold OA. This would apply to any outputs submitted after April 2013.
To support this, RCUK provided funds to a number of Universities (those which receive a certain level of RCUK funding) to pay for the Gold publication.
Universities had a number of issues to grapple with, and with a relatively tight timeline relative to the speed of change in Higher Education.
How to turn RCUK policy into a University Policy and procedure?
How to allocate the funds? (if any!)
How to track and monitor, in particular so we can report our compliance back?
And how to disseminate all those to Researchers?
And how to endure that decisions around where to publish were kept as academic decisions, not those dictated by support services (Library, Research Finance Office) and budgets.
It required the Library and Research Office to work closer together than they had likely ever done before. Libraries had little understanding of Research Financing, Grants and Funders. And Research Officers had less of an understanding around the scholarly publishing process and Open Access.
As well as the larger policy questions for a University, there was the nitty gritty of exactly what was required, developing detailed workflow and looking into how we would record this information for compliance and reporting.
How would we even know if an output has been funded by RCUK? A researcher may have added it to the IR and made it compliant, but how would we know to even include it in our reporting.
And what would we need to report to RCUK? At the time it hadn’t been stated. You can’t collect data that you don’t know you need.
The diagram shows a first attempt at a decision flow chart for deciding green or gold.
In practice, of course, things are much more fluid, and expecting researchers to contact us was somewhat more of an aspiration. It’s more typical that our first contact (if any) with an academic is often at the point that they have committed to pay for Gold and simply want to know how to pay for the thing.
At Sussex we added a number of fields to our IR to capture information that would be useful to report to RCUK. Funder information tracks the funders and projects connected to a project. We worked with our IT Services to develop a feed in data into the IR, so that you just have to select a project name and the other fields will be completed. We also had some fields around OA, though these are currently being reviewed.
The funder fields were essential as we need to identify, track and report on outputs which were RCUK funded (and increasingly for other funders as well).
The biggest challenge was reporting on non-compliancy. How do you report on those you do not know about? This required a large amount of time to manually search abstract databases (mainly Scopus) for our PIs to look for outputs which fall in this time period. Once found, we needed to check if they were RCUK funded research, and if they were submitted after the 1st April 2013.
Often, we could actually added them to our IR to make them compliant, if the journal’s policy allowed and the author had the right version available. And if not we would count the output as non-compliant.
Like Buses
RCUK is not alone.
A number of other funders have also put mandates in place in the last 18 months.
Europe has an OA policy for their new Horizon 2020 stream of funding, which places strong emphasis on deposit into an IR.
The Wellcome Trust has a policy that encourages immediate OA or short embargos and CC-BY licensing. It has also, in partnership with a number of other charities, set up a fund (COAF) to help pay for the costs of Open Access.
and then we have the REF...
Journal articles and conference papers submitted to the REF 2020 with an acceptance date of 1 April 2016 or later will have to be available as Open Access, with a maximum embargo date of 12 or 24 months (depending on subject) after acceptance.
The author’s accepted version will need to be deposited into a repository within three months of acceptance for publication. That means choosing a journal that complies, and uploading the article onto the IR, or other repository service, within three months.
This is a massive undertaking. The REF potentially applies to all academics, not just those funded by a particular funder.
Ensuring as many as possible comply will be a real challenge, and processes put into place to support this real need to scale.
The repercussions of not doing so are large: the REF dictates the block Research Grant for a University; it can make or break a University in terms of Research.
Universities can’t start to prepare for the REF a couple of years before its deadline, as for some has been the case in the past. By that time, it will be too late to deposit the research into a repository within three months of acceptance.
Universities are really only just starting to address how to respond to the REF Open Access requirements. It will require a change of culture across the institution. It will also require a notable increase in staffing resource to support and inform academics, and to supplement and check the required extra metadata.
Another Funder requirement is around Research Data. Typically, funders are requiring researchers and sometimes institutions to have research data management plans, and are encouraging the sharing of data and making it open.
There are a number of different approaches here. A University can use its existing IR, can implement a separate repository just for data, or use an external service. There are also different storage options, such as traditional local storage, ‘cloud’ based storage (Amazon S3) and specialist archival systems. One example is Loughborough, who have recently announced they will use Figshare as a frontend and as a backend for storage.
Also we are facing increasing demands to provide management reporting, and the need to integrate with the systems - the latter partly due to the IR not containing all the information we need to report on.
http://e2eoa.org/
Rioxx - Rioxx is a metadata profile. The plan is, I think, for IRs to expose data about their records according to this profile, and funders will harvest this information to track compliance and for their own reporting. Part of this work will include plugins for the major repositories. Essentially, by complying with Rioxx and its requirements, we are complying with the funder’s requirements. However, we need to make sure the data in the IR is stored and entered in such a way that it can be exposed in the correct manner. http://www.rioxx.net/
Jisc pathfinder projects : e2e: this project specifies the fields that need to be added to Eprints to help comply with the different funders. It should also result in a plugin or similar to the eprints software which will create the required fields. At the moment there are 31 fields that have been identified to ensure we can record all the information needed to comply and report for the different funders. That’s a lot of fields and raises serious questions around how we can support so many. http://e2eoa.org/
IRUS : Provides COUNTER style reports of downloads of full text. Anyone who has worked with web statistics will know the importance of reliable numbers that filter much of the ‘noise’ from web reports. And IRUS reports not just on our own data but also of other contributing IRs, allowing us to compare with our peers. http://irus.mimas.ac.uk/
This is how I model the different projects interacting with each other. I see the fields created by e2e as key, as they will hold the information that RIOXX will make available for funders, and which will be populated in part by information found (I think) by JISC Monitor.
IRs need to adapt to a new world of funder mandates and reporting and Universities need to adapt and increase their staffing to support the IR, as it takes on a larger and more important role. Though this will be less true for HEI’s with other systems.
The REF in particular will require a change in how Universities operate, something most Universities have barely begun to address.
The Library finds itself in a new role. While the Library has always played an important part in campus life, it now finds itself providing critical reporting and processes which the financial (and research reputation) future of the institution may depend on. Making a mistake in a catalogue record is very different to making a mistake in a REF submission.
Meanwhile, Universities are looking at how to support open data and the sharing of data and there are services being developed to help us in this new world.
Finally, funder mandates, especially in combination of CRIS and other Research systems, may actually bring the IR in full circle back to its OA roots.
With thanks to UKCORR mailing list for useful thoughts on some of the points raised here.
Thanks to Jane Harvell and Joanna Ball for useful comments and, in the case of the former, the use of their office for the webinar.
Thanks to Helen Webb for answering lots of questions when preparing this
Thanks to Eleanor Craig for proof reading my notes.