Report on Deposit Workflows and Open Access Support Services

In year two of the opeNWorks project we’ve looked at the approaches institutions have in place to support the HEFCE Open Access (OA) policy and OA support services.  The report presents our findings on both topics, providing a snapshot of the deposit workflows in place at 39 UK institutions and OA support services at 3 institutions in early 2016. The report suggests that workflows will continue to evolve, requiring increased staffing, greater engagement from authors or automated solutions, and that OA support services continue to be vulnerable at a number of institutions, relying on temporary, fixed-term staffing.

opeNWorks Approaches to Deposit & Benchmarking OA Support Services report

 

Approaches to Deposit: Manchester Metropolitan University

Context

Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) has approximately 550 research staff and 915 PGR students.

The University produces approximately 650 papers annually and research is managed using Symplectic Elements and a DSpace repository.

Open Access governance

Overall responsibility for Open Access, including implementation of policies, lies with MMU’s Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange (RKE).  Operational responsibility is shared between the Library and RKE.  The Library chairs the Open Access steering group which meets on an ad hoc basis and is made up of representatives from the Library staff, RKE, the Head of Research and a few academics with an interest in Open Access.

The Library isn’t represented on MMU’s Research Strategy Committee and, to date, hasn’t been invited to advise on Open Access at this committee.  However, the Research Support Librarian is a member of the Research Operations Group in MMU Cheshire and learns about Open Access activity at their meetings.

The Library manages the institutional repository, working closely with the RKE IT manager whose role includes management of Symplectic.

The Open Access Steering Group drafted an institutional policy which was introduced in 2012.  It is a statement of intent and has not been mandated.

Open Access support

Until recently MMU had 1.0 FTE librarian dedicated to Research Support, with tasks ranging from Open Access advocacy in faculties to validating deposits in DSpace.  A permanent 1.0 FTE Open Access support post has now been added to library staffing to assist with the increased number of papers deposited for the HEFCE policy.

Technical support for the repository is included in the role of a member of staff within the Digital Library Services Team.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

MMU are using existing workflows but are bringing them in line with HEFCE’s policy requirements.  The Library enhances metadata, such as adding abstracts and keywords, and checks citations and links to the published version. Time constraints do not usually allow updates after the initial verification of the record.

Deposit is via Symplectic and authors are asked to provide the following metadata:

  • Relationship to output
  • Additional authors
  • Article title
  • Journal title
  • Publication date

Communication

An all staff letter, drafted by the Library and RKE, has been sent from the Vice Chancellor to research staff and has prompted a marked increase in the number of papers deposited.  RKE have produced guides on how to deposit papers in Symplectic and the Library has led workshops in research centres.  The message is centred on the HEFCE policy but as knowledge levels about Open Access are low sessions also include basic information about Open Access and instruction on using Symplectic.

Workflow

Step 1

On acceptance author creates or claims a publication record, completing mandatory metadata fields and deposits manuscript in Symplectic.

Symplectic creates publication record in DSpace repository

Step 2

Library carries out checks on DSpace record:

Is publication metadata accurate?

Can submitted manuscript be deposited?   If not, email author advising reason for rejection

Is publication Gold OA on publisher website or internal APC records?  If yes, deposit published version

Library sets embargo period

Library makes verified records open

Challenges

As a result of awareness-raising activities the Library currently has a backlog of papers to validate in DSpace.  Authors engaging with Open Access have, in some cases, submitted their entire research output and it is difficult to filter and prioritise new publications in the DSpace workflow.

Reporting

MMU’s research is managed by RKE in Symplectic.  There is currently no requirement for the Library to produce reports from repository data but library staff find it difficult to extract reports from DSpace.  RKE are using Symplectic OA Monitor to assess engagement levels and produce reports for Research Centre Heads, and hope reports can be used proactively, to increase compliance, in future.

Effectiveness

MMU hasn’t yet developed success criteria for the approach adopted but the Library plans to work with RKE to determine appropriate measures.  It is felt that up to now there hasn’t been a culture of target setting at MMU and without a target the Library will struggle to provide meaningful data.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be 5 minutes.  On the assumption that academic staff carry out this task the cost per paper is estimated to be £2.75.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 15 minutes.  Deposits are mostly managed by Assistant Librarians and Senior Assistant Librarians.  The cost per paper is estimated to be £4.83.

The total cost for problem-free papers is estimated to be £7.58. It is likely that problematic papers will take double the time and will cost £12.41 per paper.

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of MMU’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 40% of papers will be problem-free and 60% of papers will be problematic.

(260 problem-free papers @ £7.58) + (390 problematic papers @ £12.41) =

£6810.70

 

Approaches to Deposit: Imperial College

Context

Imperial College has approximately 4000 research staff and 3000 Postgraduate research students, and produces approximately 10,000 research publications annually.

Research is managed in Symplectic Elements which is connected to a DSpace institutional repository, Spiral, by the Symplectic repository tools module.

Open Access governance

Imperial’s Open Access Publishing Group has responsibility for compliance with funder policies and managing Open Access funds. The group is chaired by the Associate Provost (Academic Partnerships) and consists of College Secretary, University Librarian, Scholarly Communications Officer, Director of Strategic Planning, representation from ICT and senior academic staff from each of the faculties.  The group meets six times a year and reports to the College on Open Access compliance.

There is also an Open Access operational group, made up of the College’s Scholarly Communications Officer, the Library’s Scholarly Communication Support Manager, the Head of Library Systems and the ICT’s Head of Information Insight, who leads on Symplectic and Spiral.  This group meets every six weeks.

The repository is managed by Library Services and the University’s ICT department.  Policy decisions are made at a senior level.  The Library’s main role is to ensure content is added to the repository and ICT provide back end configuration support.

Imperial launched an institutional Open Access policy in 2012 which mandates deposit of the Author Accepted Manuscript in Spiral.  The policy hasn’t been strictly enforced because resource was diverted from internal policy implementation to focus on the launch of RCUK’s Open Access policy.

Scholarly Communication Team

Open Access support is provided by a team made up of 6 members of staff:

Scholarly Communication Support Manager (1.0 FTE)
Open Access Support Assistants (5.0 FTE)

Repository support is provided by 0.1 FTE from Imperial’s ICT department.

Two Support Assistants focus on Green Open Access, verifying deposits to Spiral, with other staff concentrating on Gold Open Access payments.

Staffing numbers have recently increased to provide support for the HEFCE policy.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

Imperial have designed a ‘self-service’ workflow that supports both Gold and Green Open Access, based around the ‘on acceptance’ deposit workflow in Symplectic.  When depositing a paper in Symplectic authors can also request Article Processing Charge (APC) funding for Gold Open Access, via an in-house APC management system.  Minimal metadata is required when depositing a paper or requesting funding:

  • Journal title
  • Article title
  • Acceptance date
  • DOI (if available)

Authors who have deposited a paper in another repository can provide a link to the article instead of depositing the full-text.

The workflow was piloted for 7 months with 8 research groups in 2015, when the Symplectic ‘deposit on acceptance’ workflow was released.  The pilot helped Imperial understand how long the deposit process would take, information used to inform resource decisions.

During the pilot authors had the choice of sending a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript and the date of acceptance to the Library, either to request Open Access funding or for the Library to deposit the paper in Spiral, or of creating a publication record in Symplectic themselves.  Despite the Library offering to take on the administrative tasks associated with depositing papers, approximately half of the researchers from schools participating in the pilot did not favour a wholly facilitated model over self-deposit.  Many researchers involved in the pilot followed the self-deposit route and they deposited older papers.  Imperial believe that researchers were happy to deposit themselves because they were already familiar with using Symplectic to create and manage publication records.

One aim of the pilot was to reduce the administrative input required of research staff.  A key learning point for the Library was the difficulty of identifying metadata from Author Accepted Manuscripts, especially for conference papers.

Although the final project report did not indicate a strong need for a library mediated support model, Imperial continue to provide two support routes: self-deposit by author and submission of manuscript to the Library.

Having set up author alerts in Symplectic, authors are reminded to deposit on acceptance and are nudged if their post-2014 publication records don’t have a full-text attached.  These features and the levels of self-deposit during the pilot convinced Imperial that this approach will increase policy compliance levels.

Communication

The Library’s campaign has been led from the top, with the University Librarian speaking alongside the Research Office’s Scholarly Communications Officer at research committee meetings.  Presentations have been delivered by Scholarly Communication leads all departments and Liaison Librarians have been briefed so that they can reinforce the message in their regular interactions.

The campaign has focused on two key points – “one: on acceptance you need to do something; two: get in touch with the Library” – and has emphasised to a staff already familiar with creating or claiming records in Symplectic on publication that the action point has now shifted to acceptance date.

Other awareness raising activities that have taken place include Open Access Week events, including a talk by Professor Stephen Curry, and an event for departmental Open Access champions.  The Library’s website has been updated and includes a video on how to use Symplectic, and Open Access booklets, screenwipes and pens have been distributed.

Workflow

Step 1

On acceptance author creates publication record with minimal metadata (or claims existing publication record) and deposits manuscript in Symplectic.

OR

On acceptance author creates publication record with minimal metadata (or claims existing publication record) and provides URL to publication in another repository.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record with minimal metadata (or claims existing publication record) and deposits manuscript in Symplectic.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record with minimal metadata (or claims existing publication record) and provides URL to publication in another repository.

OR

On acceptance author submits manuscript and minimal metadata to Library by email.

OR

On acceptance delegate submits manuscript and minimal metadata to Library by email.

Publication record is created in Spiral when a full-text item has been uploaded in Symplectic or a link to another repository has been added

Step 2

Library carries out checks on Spiral record:

Is publication metadata accurate?  If not, Library amends metadata.

Does article acknowledge EPSRC? If so, does article include a data statement?  If not, Library contacts author to explain requirements and signpost online guidance.

Does journal comply with HEFCE/REF OA policy?  If journal embargo exceeds HEFCE requirement, record as possible exception. If journal does not permit deposit, reject submission and record as possible exception.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited?  If not, contact author to request correct version.

Library sets indefinite manuscript embargo period in Spiral.

Library monitors publication of deposited papers in Symplectic.

OR

Library creates manual record for submitted manuscripts and checks:

Does article acknowledge a research funder with an Open Access policy?  If yes, Library checks compliance with relevant policies.

Does article include a data statement?  If not, Library contacts author to explain requirements and signpost online guidance.

Does journal comply with HEFCE/REF OA policy?  If journal embargo exceeds HEFCE requirement, record as possible exception. If journal does not permit deposit, reject submission and record as possible exception.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited?  If not, contact author to request correct version.

Library sets indefinite manuscript embargo period in Spiral.

Library monitors publication of deposited papers in Symplectic.

On publication

Stage 3

Library enhances publication record using Symplectic merge function, as needed.

Library maintains Spiral publication records using reports developed in-house.

Library sets embargo period.

Reporting

The Library plans to use the Open Access Monitor in Symplectic and will create compliance reports for the College.  A statistics dashboard in Oracle will display details of publications and deposits, based on data from the Open Access Monitor.  This information will be available to department heads and research directors.  Imperial are investigating the possibility of producing reports on individuals using the Open Access Monitor.

Effectiveness

Imperial aimed to test the effectiveness of the workflow through the pilot.  The main success criterion considered during the pilot was an increase in deposit levels within compliant timescales. Deposit levels will be monitored regularly and processes may be revised if appropriate.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be 3 minutes.  On the assumption that academic staff carry out this task the cost per paper is estimated to be £1.65.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 6 minutes.  The cost per paper is estimated to be £2.00.

The total cost for problem-free papers is estimated to be £3.65. It is likely that problematic papers will take double the time for staff to process and will cost £5.65 per paper.

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of Imperial’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 80% of papers will be problem-free and 20% of papers will be problematic.

(8000 problem-free papers @ £3.65) + (2000 problematic papers @ £5.65) =

£40,500.

Approaches to Deposit Case Study: University of Sheffield

Context

There are approximately 1300 research active staff and 2500 research students at the University of Sheffield. The annual research output is approximately 6000 publications and these are stored in an Eprints repository, White Rose Research Online (WRRO).

The University’s Research and Innovation Services (RIS) team use Symplectic Elements to manage research. The University of Sheffield is part of the White Rose Consortium and WRRO is managed by the White Rose Executive.

Open Access governance

Sheffield has an Open Access Advisory Group which is chaired by the Library’s Deputy Director and includes library Open Access staff, academic staff and representatives from RIS and Computing and Information Services (CICS). The Library leads on the implementation of Open Access policies, recommending approaches to RIS and the University Executive Board (UEB).

In November 2013 the Open Access Advisory Group approved a position statement on Open Access. This requires that authors record research outputs in Symplectic and upload papers to WRRO wherever possible. Sheffield decided not to introduce a mandatory policy: the expectation was that the Open Access requirements for RCUK and HEFCE would have a greater impact on researchers than an institutional policy. However, some departments do not consider outputs that are not recorded in Symplectic and WRRO during academic annual reviews and promotions bids.

Decisions relating to WRRO are made by the White Rose Executive board in consultation with stakeholders, ie, senior staff from each professional service from each university.

Open Access Team

There are currently 5 members of staff working on Open Access in the newly created Research Support Unit:

Open Access Co-ordinator (0.75 FTE)

Senior Open Access Assistants (1.5 FTE)

Open Access Assistants (1.2 FTE)

In theory, the Senior Open Access Assistants oversee the APC service for RCUK/COAF authors and the more complex deposits into the repository.  However, due to the rapid increase in deposits to the repository driven by the HEFCE Open Access policy, their time is currently allocated mostly to processing the deposits, with the Co-ordinator handling the majority of APC requests.

One technical specialist provides support for WRRO across all the White Rose universities.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

The Library has designed a new workflow that is as simple as possible for authors, in order to maximise uptake.  Previously deposits were made after publication, when Scopus records were available in Symplectic. The workflow has been tested in the run up to the policy launch and will continue to be monitored to measure effectiveness and amend processes where required.

Authors or an administrative ‘delegate’ are required to create records in Symplectic with minimal mandatory metadata fields including author, article title, journal and either a date of acceptance or, for the first year of the HEFCE policy, a date of publication.

Sheffield recommends that authors who are planning to make their paper Gold Open Access deposit the AAM on acceptance; authors can then submit the PDF of papers that are published as Gold Open Access.  Authors are encouraged to deposit papers to WRRO even if they also deposit to a subject repository.  If authors provide a link to another repository the Open Access team will normally deposit the paper to WRRO.

Following deposit, the Senior Open Access Assistants categorise and validate records in WRRO.  This categorisation allows staff to ‘triage’ the deposits and ensures that articles affected by the HEFCE Open Access Policy can be processed within the required timeframe, even if deposits are at higher levels per day than library staff can deal with.  This system also helps the Open Access team manage this work, eg, processing work can be divided between straightforward papers and more complicated ones, detailed instructions have been written for each category, and staff can be trained and assigned accordingly.

The Open Access team only exceptionally create records in Symplectic on behalf of authors.  This approach is partially due to staffing resource – Sheffield believe that inputting all papers for all staff would require a significant increase in the number of staff needed in the Open Access team.  Another reason for this approach is that Symplectic has been in place for some time at the University and researchers are encouraged to engage with its full range of functionality, eg, the ability to link outputs to grants and record impact activity as well as submitting papers to the repository.

However, university departments are currently free to determine how publications are deposited to the repository.  Some departments expect academics to take full responsibility for deposit.  This approach is driven by the institutional expectation that researchers should engage with Symplectic, the availability of departmental staff resource or because it is the author themselves who has the paper.  Other departments have nominated administrative assistants to deposit papers on behalf of authors and to chase authors for papers.  The University REF management groups will monitor and compare the effectiveness of both approaches.

Communication

Sheffield has undertaken a range of communication activities to raise awareness of the HEFCE policy. The Library has asked departments for an agenda slot at research committee meetings or to speak at research away days. There is an Open Access session on the doctoral development programme and one-off sessions have been delivered, including during Open Access Week. Email messages have been distributed and the Library’s website has been updated. The Library’s key messages in conversation with researchers have emphasised the manuscript version to deposit into the repository and that the Library will carry out the necessary checks.

During March 2016, the Open Access team launched a ‘Ready for REF’ marketing campaign. Activities included highlighting the launch of the new webpages, sending a postcard outlining the key messages sent to every member of research staff, distribution of an email message from the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research and Innovation outlining the REF requirements, and a number of presentations open to staff and/or PGRs.

Workflow

Step 1

On acceptance author creates publication record with minimal metadata and deposits manuscript in Symplectic and uploads file to Eprints.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record with minimal metadata and deposits manuscript in Symplectic and uploads files to Eprints.

Symplectic creates publication record in EPrints repository;

file is deposited in buffer/workspace area

Step 2

Senior Open Access Assistants quickly check all records deposited each day and categorise them according to the following criteria:

Cat 1: Journal articles that have been accepted after 1st of April 2016 and are part of REF policy but are awaiting publication (in press), with correct version submitted
Cat 1b: Journal articles that have been accepted after 1st of April 2016 and are part of REF policy but are awaiting publication (in press), with incorrect version submitted or no file uploaded
Cat 1c: Journal articles that have been accepted after 1st of April 2016 and are part of REF policy, already published, with correct version submitted
Cat 1d: Journal articles that have been accepted after 1st of April 2016 and are part of REF policy, already published, with incorrect version submitted or no file uploaded
Cat 1e: Conferences accepted after 1st of April 2016

Category 2a: Outputs accepted between 1/1/14 and 31/3/16 (REF eligible), accepted but not published online, with correct version submitted
Category 2b: Outputs accepted between 1/1/14 and 31/3/16 (REF eligible), accepted but not published online, with incorrect version submitted
Category 2c: Outputs accepted between 1/1/14 and 31/3/16 (REF eligible), published online, with correct version submitted
Category 2d: Outputs accepted between 1/1/14 and 31/3/16 (REF eligible), published online, with incorrect version submitted

Cat 3: Outputs that are published gold open access
Cat 4: Outputs that fall outside the REF and are the correct version
Cat 5: Outputs that fall outside the REF and are the incorrect version
Cat 6: Outputs that fall outside the REF and publisher policy is unclear.

Step 4

Library carries out checks on WRRO record:

Is publication metadata accurate? If not, Open Access Assistants check and update, contacting author only as a last resort.

Does journal comply with HEFCE/REF OA policy? If not, contact author or depositor.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited? If not, contact author.

Library sets indefinite embargo period for manuscript and makes metadata record live.

Library asks authors to inform them of publication and provide DOI.

Library checks publication status of ‘In Press’ items intermittently.

On publication

Stage 5

Library curates metadata in WRRO.

Library sets embargo period.

Reporting

The Symplectic Open Access plug-in (OA Monitor) has just been implemented to aid reporting on compliance with the HEFCE policy.  The intention is that reports will be set up that departments can then extract themselves.  These will identify which researchers haven’t deposited papers and any publications recorded as exceptions.  RIS will also monitor activity levels in My Publications.

Reports will be provided to the Open Access Advisory Group in the first instance and RIS is currently finalising report templates.

Open Access staff are keeping daily records of how many records are deposited into WRRO, how many papers are processed and how much time staff have spent processing those records to monitor workloads and assess how much staff resource is likely to be needed in the future.

Challenges

At Sheffield a high number of items deposited over recently months are outside the scope for REF. Academic staff have deposited not only current publications but their entire publication output, items that are typically the most difficult to process.  This was a key driver in the decision to categorise the deposits prior to processing.

Data for deposits in January/February 2016 shows that 773 items were categorised in total, of which just under half were within the REF scope, ie, a journal article or conference paper published since Jan 2014.  Of these, 15% of papers deposited were the incorrect version.

Effectiveness

The Library wants all REF eligible papers deposited to WRRO to be processed as soon as possible after deposit.  Sheffield believes that the perfect approach to deposit model won’t emerge for some time and are working closely with Open Access staff at York and Leeds to try and establish best practice.

Open Access staff are recording the number of deposits per category to establish the proportion of items deposited that are affected by the HEFCE policy and have the correct file on initial deposit.  Figures for Jan/Feb 2016 will be compared with March/April 2016 to determine whether the marketing campaign helped to increase the number of REF-eligible deposits, and whether authors have understood the need to deposit the AAM and deposited the correct version.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be between 3 and 10 minutes, depending on how familiar the depositor is with the system.  Experienced delegates are likely to take less time to deposit papers than academic staff.  However, on the assumption that academic staff carry out this task and take the longest time the cost per paper is estimated to be £5.49.

Papers are categorised by Senior Open Access Assistants.  The categorisation process takes about 2 minutes per paper but increases efficiency as papers of similar type can be dealt with in batches.  The cost of categorisation is £0.88 per paper.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 5 minutes.  These papers have usually been identified as such in the categorisation process and can be treated by the Open Access assistants. The cost of managing problem-free papers is £1.47.

The time taken to process problematic papers varies but on average is likely to take four times as long as a problem-free paper, due to need to liaise with author/depositor and if necessary the publisher.  These papers are usually handled by Senior Open Access Assistants at a cost of £5.88.

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of Sheffield’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 80% of papers will be problem-free and 20% of papers will be problematic.

(4800 problem-free papers @ £7.84) + (1200 problematic papers @ £12.25)

= £52,332.

Next steps

The process for monitoring the publication of accepted papers is still evolving. Sheffield are currently considering how often to run reports on ‘In Press’ items in order to update publication records in line with HEFCE requirements whilst avoiding wasting staff resource.

Approaches to Deposit Case Study: University of Sussex

5

Context

The University of Sussex has 1200 staff, of which approximately 300 are exclusively research roles.  The annual research output (approximately 1300 papers) is stored in an EPrints repository, Sussex Research Online (SRO).

The University is organised into 12 schools.  Operational decisions are often devolved to school level resulting in inconsistent policy implementation.

Open Access governance

The Library manages the institutional repository, prepared an institutional position on depositing to SRO and makes recommendations on Open Access to the University’s Research Committee.

The key current recommendation is for a new Open Access governance structure.  This aims to create a sense of university-wide ownership of the repository and would establish strategic and operational groups drawing membership from the Library, IT Services, the Research Office and the University Press and Communications department.  A user panel, made up of librarians and academic staff, is also recommended to ensure that all stakeholder groups can input into repository decisions and developments, and to encourage academic ownership.

Rather than a formal policy Sussex has an Open Access statement, which reflects HEFCE’s Open Access policy.  Adoption of the statement is at the discretion of individual schools and there is no centralised approach to Open Access implementation.  Schools have developed their own Open Access polices based on the University’s statement.  Schools are required to report on publications at termly meetings – some schools plan to consider only publications that are deposited in SRO.

The Library’s relationships with school administrators and training staff are critical in understanding Open Access activity across campus.

Open Access support

Sussex’s central Open Access support is provided by the Library’s Research Support and Content Delivery teams.

Research Support Librarian (1.0 FTE with currently 0.8 FTE estimated on OA/repository)

Open Access & Repository Support Officer (0.8 FTE) – SRO/OpenAccess support and advocacy

Content Delivery library assistants (0.5 FTE at Grade 5 and 0.75 FTE at Grade 3) – metadata

Until recently Library staff received technical development support for SRO from a colleague with EPrints experience but support has now passed to University IT staff.

There are an unknown number of roles supporting Open Access across campus.  Some schools have employed administrative staff to create publication records and deposit papers on behalf of authors.  Where these roles exist, the extent of support varies: some schools provide support for all staff whilst others support only the research director.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

Sussex’s repository workflow has been in place for a number of years.  The Library requests entry of the following key metadata, although fields are not mandatory:

  • item type
  • title
  • author(s)
  • publication details
  • school

In preparation for the HEFCE policy the workflow needs to amend the previous requirement for authors to add only records of published outputs to SRO.

The Library also plans to simplify the workflow by advising staff supporting Open Access in schools of the standard minimum requirements and committing library staff to the task of enhancing metadata records.

Authors are asked to deposit all papers to SRO, including those published as Gold Open Access. Subject repositories are considered to be an additional but not an alternative to SRO.

Although the deposit workflow is well established the Library has yet to introduce procedures to monitor publication of papers added to SRO at acceptance stage.

Communication

The Library leads on policy communication and takes a school by school approach to accommodate the various school-level approaches to Open Access. The lack of centralisation at Sussex has increased the importance of identifying key people in each school to cascade messages.

Activities undertaken include meeting with individuals and research groups, presentations to school boards, training on SRO deposit, coffee mornings and drop-in sessions, and Open Access workshops on the University’s research training programme.

Workflow

 Step 1

On acceptance author creates publication record and deposits manuscript in EPrints.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record and deposits manuscript in EPrints.

Record goes into buffer zone

Step 2

Library carries out checks on Eprints record:

Is publication record of acceptable standard? If not, send record back to author.

Is publication metadata complete and accurate?  If not, enhance record to standard, minimum requirement.

Library ensures publication records are in house style.

Library checks journal embargo period.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited?   If not, contact author to request correct version

Library locks publication record and makes metadata open.

Library monitors publication status of accepted records and encourages authors to contact the Library when papers are published.

On publication

Stage 3

Library updates metadata.

Library sets embargo periods.

Difficulties

  • Due to the number of enquiries Library Open Access support staff receive they have been unable to update support materials.
  • School-level implementation of Open Access adds complexity to communication activities.

Reporting

At Sussex school staff have access to a central dashboard which includes publication data from SRO.  This is used for internal reporting on publications and levels of Open Access.

RIOXX and the EPrints REF plug-in have recently been added to SRO and library staff expect to present compliance data at regular meetings with the Research Office.  Decisions about how to tackle non-compliant papers/authors have yet to be made.

Effectiveness

Sussex will test the effectiveness of the approach by carrying out a “REF practice” during the first year of the HEFCE policy.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be 5 minutes.  On the assumption that academic staff carry out this task the cost per paper is estimated to be £2.75.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 5 minutes.  Deposits are managed by Senior Library Assistants.  The cost per paper is estimated to be £1.48.

The total cost for problem-free papers is estimated to be £4.23. It is likely that problematic papers will take double the time and will cost £5.71 per paper.

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of Sussex’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 80% of papers will be problem-free and 20% of papers will be problematic.

(260 problem-free papers @ £4.23) + (1040 problematic papers @ £5.71) =

£7,038.

Approaches to Deposit Case Study: Liverpool John Moores University

Context

Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) has 1070 staff, of which 120 are exclusively research roles, and 600 Postgraduate research students.

The University produces approximately 1500 papers annually and manages research using Symplectic Elements and an EPrints repository

Open Access governance

The University’s Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and the Research, Scholarship and Knowledge Transfer Committee have strategic responsibility for Open Access.  Library Services advise and make recommendations on policy implementation to this committee.

Library Services manage the institutional repository in conjunction with the Research and Innovation team.

LJMU adopted an institutional Open Access policy in 2014 which is based on the HEFCE Open Access policy requirements.  Library Services inform research staff about the institutional policy but in practice it is mostly referenced in order to encourage authors to deposit papers that they believe aren’t affected by the HEFCE policy, ie, papers that authors perceive are unlikely to be returned in the next REF exercise.

Open Access support

Library Services has recently created a Research Support team which provides Open Access services:

Research Support team manager (0.6 FTE)
Open Access and Digital Scholarship librarian (strategic lead) (1.0 FTE)
Research Support librarian (repository) (10% of 0.6 FTE supporting repository)

Further support handling deposits comes from the Content and Digital Strategy team:

Resource Discovery Officer (40% of 1.0 FTE supporting repository)

Technical support for the repository is obtained from the EPrints support team.

The librarian with strategic responsibility is responsible for advocacy and training as well as validating deposits to the repository.  LJMU acknowledges that validation could be carried out by staff working at a lower grade but there is currently no other resource available.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

LJMU set up the link between Symplectic and Eprints and introduced the workflow via a trial in 2014.  Authors have been required to engage with Symplectic for research reporting purposes for some time.  When considering an approach Library Services was keen to maintain a single point of deposit to ensure a simple process for authors.  Although the workflow is resource-intensive for library staff it meets the objective of simplicity for authors.

Authors are asked to complete a number of mandatory fields:

Relationship to article
Article type
Date of acceptance
Publication status
Article title
Authors
Journal title

As Symplectic is used to manage REF submission authors are encouraged to deposit all papers, even if published as Gold Open Access or deposited to arXiv.

Library Services is aware that one department plans to use administrative staff to carry out deposits on behalf of research staff but this is not typical across campus.

Communication

During the deposit pilot Library Services liaised with LJMU’s Unit of Assessment Coordinators group and attended research meetings in all faculties.  Advocacy efforts have continued following the pilot, either at the request of a school or when library staff identify a gap in engagement with Symplectic.

Workflow

 Step 1

On acceptance author creates publication record or claims existing Scopus record and deposits manuscript in Symplectic.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record or claims existing Scopus record and deposits manuscript in Symplectic.

OR

Authors import publication records from arXiv.

Symplectic creates publication record in EPrints review area

Step 2

Library staff carry out checks on EPrints record:

Is publication metadata accurate?  If not, enhance record.

Is acceptance date included?  If not, contact author.

Does journal comply with HEFCE/REF OA policy?  If not, inform the author, create publication record without full-text and record exception in Symplectic OA Monitor and REFCC page on EPrints.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited?  If not, return the item to the author and request the correct version.  Authors have to resubmit via Symplectic.

Has paper been published?  If no, set indefinite embargo period; if yes, set embargo period.

Make publication record open.

Library staff set up alerts to Web of Science and Scopus and create EPrints reports to track publication of accepted papers.

Following publication

Stage 3

Library staff update metadata.

Library staff set embargo periods.

Difficulties

Some authors continue to import publication records from Scopus and arXiv for deposits. Imported records do not include metadata mandated by Library Services, eg, acceptance date.

Reporting

LJMU is using OA Monitor in Symplectic to check compliance and can produce reports by department or Unit of Assessment. Reports also indicate engagement with Symplectic, eg, acting on author prompts, and therefore with the HEFCE policy.  Library Services now provide regular updates to Unit of Assessment Coordinators and Associate Deans for Research in each faculty.

EPrints is used to check compliance against acceptance date and embargo periods but library staff find it more difficult to produce reports than Symplectic.

Effectiveness

Library Services has had a positive response to advocacy activities and do not report much resistance from research staff. Deposits to the repository have increased each month since the trial and are made within three months of acceptance, and new authors are now depositing papers.

Reports indicating lack of engagement with Symplectic are being used to target further communication and advocacy. OA Monitor will be used to alert authors who haven’t deposited the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) to the policy requirement and the timescale for compliant deposit.

Reports will be sent to Unit of Assessment Coordinators and Library Services will work with schools where there is concern about deposit levels.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be 3 minutes.  On the assumption that academic staff carry out this task the cost per paper is estimated to be £1.65.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 10 minutes.  Deposits are managed by librarians.  The cost per paper is estimated to be £4.40.

The total cost for problem-free papers is estimated to be £6.05.

The time taken to create a publication record is expected to be constant.  However, it is likely that problematic papers will take librarians double the time to manage the deposit at £8.80 per paper.

The total cost of a problematic paper is therefore estimated to be £10.45

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of LJMU’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 80% of papers will be problem-free and 20% of papers will be problematic.

(1200 problem-free papers @ £6.05) + (300 problematic papers @ £10.45) =

£10,395.

Approaches to Deposit Case Study: Queen Mary University London

Context

Queen Mary University London (QMUL) currently has approximately 1675 research staff and 1554 Postgraduate Research students.

The annual output of research papers is estimated to be 2700, based on Scopus data.

QMUL has a CRIS (Symplectic Elements) and a DSpace institutional repository, QMRO.

Open Access governance

Strategic responsibility for Open Access policy implementation lies with QMUL’s Vice Principal for Research.  QMUL’s preference is for Green Open Access – it has issued guidelines rather than a formal policy which have not been widely adopted or communicated.

The Library is the operational lead on Open Access, managing QMRO and the University’s RCUK Open Access block grant.  The Library’s Research Support Manager provides Open Access updates to a new group, made up of directors of research and the grant office.

Repository and Research Information Team

The Library team is made up of 7 members of staff:

Research Support Manager (1.0 FTE)
Repository and Research Information Team Manager (1.0 FTE)
Senior Library Assistant (5 .0 FTE)

The team has expanded recently due to increases in the usage of QMRO, based on the current approach to deposit, and the number of Gold Open Access payment request.

A named contact (1.0 FTE) in QMUL’s IT department provides technical support for the repository and Elements.

Approach to deposit for HEFCE’s Open Access policy

QMUL have not introduced a new deposit workflow in preparation for the HEFCE Open Access policy.  Researchers at QMUL have been required to claim or create publication records since Elements was introduced and the Library has always provided a mediated support service, verifying papers and setting embargo periods in the QMRO.  Although the deposit workflow isn’t new, most authors need to adapt their behaviour to meet HEFCE’s ‘deposit on acceptance’ requirement.

Authors are required to complete a number of mandatory fields:

Relationship to article
Article type
Date of acceptance
Publication status
Article title
Authors
Journal title

Deposit of papers is not mandated but library staff pursue the full-text when a copy is not deposited.  Currently papers are deposited for approximately 50% of records created. The Library team believe that authors engage with the deposit process due to the prompt in Elements that highlights records without full-text.  The rate of deposit has increased by 1000% within 12 months following the switch-on of the publication prompt in Elements and discussion about the HEFCE Open Access policy.

Authors are asked to deposit papers that are published as Gold Open Access in QMRO and to create publication records and provide links to papers deposited in other repositories.

 Workflow

 Step 1

On acceptance author creates publication record, completing mandatory metadata fields, in Elements.

OR

On acceptance author creates publication record, completing mandatory metadata fields and uploads manuscript in Elements.

OR

On acceptance delegate creates publication record with minimal metadata and uploads manuscript in Elements.

Completion of the deposit process in Elements creates a publication record in QMRO.

Step 2

Library contacts author to request manuscript if publication is not deposited

Library carries out checks on DSpace record:

Is publication metadata accurate? If not, enhance record.

Does journal comply with HEFCE/REF OA policy? If not, record as an exception.

Can submitted manuscript be deposited? If not, contact author.

Library allocates publication record to a collection in DSpace. Record is open unless library is aware of a metadata embargo.

Library monitors publication status of accepted records.

Following publication

 Stage 3

Library updates metadata

Library sets embargo periods

Library makes all verified records open

Difficulties

  • Some metadata fields aren’t carried over from Elements to QMRO, increasing the manual intervention required from library staff.
  • The Library team manages publication records in QMRO but not Elements, which populates staff profile pages. Embargoes applied to QMRO publication metadata records are not automatically reflected in Elements.

Communication

A range of awareness-raising activities have been undertaken, including at Open Access Week, eg, engaging staff with a research remit or research responsibility at meetings in their department, regular workshops and drop-in sessions.

Reporting

The Library does not currently provide compliance reports to faculties but has been asked by some departments to keep them informed of non-compliant authors.  The team currently contact individual authors to alert them when their papers don’t meet funder policy requirements.

The Elements HEFCE policy function has recently been implemented and will assist with monitoring and reporting.

Effectiveness

QMUL hasn’t introduced a new workflow and so hasn’t set success criteria.  The increased deposit level noted over the past 12 months is the key indicator of the effectiveness of the current approach.

Cost of approach to deposit

The time for a publication record to be created and a full-text attached is estimated to be 3 minutes.  On the assumption that academic staff carry out this task the cost per paper is estimated to be £1.65.

The time to manage a deposit for a problem-free paper is estimated to be 5 minutes.  Deposits are managed by Senior Library Assistants.  The cost per paper is estimated to be £1.60.

The total cost for problem-free papers is estimated to be £3.25.

The time taken to create a publication record is expected to be constant. However it is likely that problematic papers will take the Senior Library Assistants double the time (10 mins) to manage the deposit @ £3.25 per paper. The total cost for a problematic paper is therefore estimated to be £4.85.

To calculate the estimated annual total cost of QMUL’s deposit workflow it is assumed that 80% of papers will be problem-free and 20% of papers will be problematic.

(2160 problem-free papers @ £3.25) + (540 problematic papers @ £4.85) = £9,639.

‘Approaches to deposit’ survey

One element of our Jisc funded Pathfinder project, opeNWorks, is to investigate the approaches that institutions are taking to support deposit of publications in light of the HEFCE/REF OA policy.  We have already carried out a number of case studies and would now like to gather information from a larger number of institutions.

Below is the link to a short survey we have created.  If you can spare 5-10 minutes to complete the survey we would be very grateful.  Your experiences will help us develop a national picture of support activities and inform recommendations in our final project report.

https://edgehill.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/deposit-workflow-survey-2016

The survey will close on Friday 5th February.

January progress update

Over recent months the opeNWorks project team have been busy on two main areas of work:

  1. To aid the development of a regional OA community we have created an online hub for the toolkit we released in September – openworks.online. The resource is listed on the NoWAL website’s information for the regional Research Support Group and provides an online forum for discussion and exchange of experience.  This resource is currently being maintained by the University of Liverpool.  Comments about the resource can be sent to Martin.Wolf@liverpool.ac.uk.
  1. Interviews have been carried out with 8 case study institutions – University of Cambridge, Imperial College, Liverpool John Moores University, Manchester Metropolitan University, Queen Mary University of London, University of Salford, University of Sheffield and the University of Sussex.  The University of Manchester is also a case study institution.

Having completed the interviews we are now in the process of writing up the case studies – these will be available on the blog over the next few weeks but our project sponsor, Simon Bains, will be presenting some early findings at the upcoming Inside Government event, ‘The Next Steps for Open Access in Higher Education’.

We’d like to thank all the case study participants as well as the institutions that volunteered to be case studies.  We will shortly be releasing a brief survey to gather details of the deposit workflows in place at a broader range of institutions.  We’ll post the link on this blog and via key email lists and very much hope that you’ll share your experience with us.

 

 

 

New home for opeNWorks OA Toolkit

The Open Access Toolkit developed as part of the opeNWorks project has a new more permanent home at http://www.openworks.online/. Our new Hub provides links to:

  1. Guide for Open Access for Support Staff – this is a guide aimed at staff who are new to open access support or for whom OA is just a part of their role.
  2. OA Advocacy Presentation – this is an introductory presentation covering the main points you might want to get across when talking to your academics about Open Access. There are some generic slides and blank slides for you to add information unique to your institution. Also included are presentation notes and details of how to tailor the presentation for your needs.
  3. Ask an OA Colleague – this is a series of Frequently Asked Questions developed based on the experiences of the project team and other colleagues within the North West region.

You can help by contributing to the “Ask a colleague” section, share either a question or an answer with us by leaving a comment on the page. Discussions will then be summarised and added to the FAQ.

As the project continues we’ll aim to update the toolkit to reflect OA developments so watch this space.

Image: CC0 Public Domain