Category: Work package 3

Open Access life cycle

During the mapping process, we were particularly influenced by the following slide from Neil Jacobs.

So much so, that we have used this as a basis for our open access life cycle, which is an attempt to bring this together with OAWAL, Jisc OA/above campus services, publisher services and the Institutional workflow.

In the centre circle, we have used the 7 stages of the publishing process as described by Neil, this is followed by institutional processes – of course not all institutions will have all of these processes up and running, e.g. we don’t all have a CRIS. We then included publisher services that directly impact upon the work of the open access team and also Jisc OA services. We then went on to map Jisc OA and above campus services to the life cycle – doing this we immediately found an issue with Publication Router, which is why we have included it twice, once where it currently affects the life cycle and once where we think it should sit – at point of acceptance. Finally, we added the 6 sections of OAWAL showing where we think that fits with the life cycle.

This is very much a first draft of the life cycle and again, we would very much welcome comment on what we have done so far.

OAWAL will also add the life cycle and ask for comment; there will also be a US version, which will not only be useful to the US librarians but also as a comparison between the two countries.

We’ve started with the library view – where should we go from here? There are a few things that the life cycle doesn’t show, and again we welcome comment.

• It doesn’t show the relationship between the different circle – we didn’t want to over complicate things
• In addition it doesn’t show things from the researchers point of view, e.g. the research dissemination workflow
• Or the OA policy workflow
• And finally, we mention the publishing workflow, but we only mention what is relevant to open access workflows, for example, we deliberately omit the peer review process

We hope to blog something about the OA policy side very soon and we hope to link this up with PASTEUR4OA. Something else we would really like to do is to map the researcher life cycle in relation to OA so that we can understand how we can embed OA to support researcher’s dissemination.

What we would really like are some guest bloggers on the subject above to help us make a start. We may end up with lots of interesting life cycles!

One of the work packages we set out to complete as part of the HHuLOA project was to look at open access service development. We did this by matching Jisc OA services alongside our current institutional workflows and the 6 sections in OAWAL (Open Access Workflows for Academic Librarians) winner of the 2015 Ingram Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resources Management

We started matching the Jisc services based on two presentations from Neil Jacobs:

http://openaccess.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2014/10/Jisc-REF-OA-workflows-workshop1.pptx

http://www.slideshare.net/ARLGSW/darts-nj-june-2014

Matching Jisc services to Institutional workflows and OAWAL

Matching standards to Institutional workflows and OAWAL

Identifying the gaps

Looking at the two tables above, we identified the following gaps in Jisc Services that would need to be filled for institutional workflows to better connect.

• SHERPA Romeo/Juliet/Fact. Common definitions are terms are required for SHERPA, funders and institutions to overlap
• SHERPA Romeo. The is nothing on Romeo regarding HEFCE compliance
• SHERPA Fact. Auto prompting is required at the submission stage on the manuscript platform for Fact to be embedded
• Publications router. De-duplication has to be done at the local level, which can increase the amount of staff time spent on each item (this is because router gets a lot of its information at the time of publication, rather than acceptance – often repository items are deposited after acceptance and before publication causing duplications
• Publications Router. There is an issue for Repositories that get their information from a CRIS/WoS/Scopus and not through the SWORD protocol
• Total cost of ownership (Jisc Collections NESLi2 negotiations). Metadata standards from publisher should be part of the NESLi2 model licence negotiation
• Jisc Monitor. A single point of payment would be more efficient as individual APCs increase
• JISC-OU CORE. There is a missing link here to other discovery systems, e.g. Primo, Summon, OCLC WordCat, EDS, Google Scholar
• IRUS-UK. There is no link between the IR usage and the publisher usage e.g. AR1 report (as defined by PIRUS)
• IRUS-UK. Altmetrics, these are available on some Repositories for items and for individual researchers but things are not linked with IRUS-UK etc.
• There is a missing link here with Research Fish.

Since we started looking at this some of the gaps are already being filled, but we would welcome more comment.

In addition, OAWAL has been conducting an open peer review process for the last 12 months, which will end with a session at the 2015 UKSG conference in Glasgow. Early findings from this process have been documented in the following open access article:

Emery, Jill and Stone, Graham (2014) The Sound of the Crowd: Using Social Media to develop best practices for Open Access Workflows for Academic Librarians (OAWAL). Collaborative Librarianship, 6 (3). pp. 104-111.

OAWAL will now go through a period of re-writing and restructuring, indeed sections 1. Advocacy and 5. Copyright Issues are being re-written right now!

The HHuLOA would welcome comment on the above – please either comment below or get in touch with the team