Open Access Metadata Discussion 30th April

We are having an information meeting of a few sites here at Glasgow PM 30th April.

Discussion will be based around a demo of functionality in live Glasgow EPrints system which includes RCUK (RIOXX) and local Open Access requirements and ability to output to Charities Open Access Spreadsheet format.

If you want to join us please let me know

We will blog an update afterwards and arrange some wider discussions.

EU Open Access Pilot

Glasgow are taking part in an Open Access pilot for completed FP7 projects.  We expect the pilot to start late April/early May.

In preparation we:

  • Are attending a meeting tomorrow 9th April to discuss the pilot.
  • Are checking how our list of FP7 awards compares to that supplied by the project team.
  • Have spent some time yesterday with the reps from the pilot project team looking at the recording system that has been set up and comparing this to our EPrints system and to the Jisc spreadsheet that is available for reporting on charities open access funding.
  • Are getting some advice from our finance office on VAT arrangements for this project
  • Are double checking our OpenAire compliance and EPrints functionality that we have embedded in our repository.

We will post more here once we get started on this pilot.

Process Review

Seasonal Open Access Process review at Kent


Glasgow also reviewing processes this morning focussing on financial management with the usual suspect issues emerging:

  • How can we streamline communications to the authors when we have to send them initial advice, confirm payments, confirm repository deposit – ongoing work on streamlining these
  • Confusion of having so many different publisher processes and policies
  • Time take from committing to pay to actual invoice receipt and actual cost being paid from and recorded on official Finance System
  • Matching up transactions from Finance System to our committments – sometimes transactions are bundled and no unique identifier at early stage can exasperate this problem

Hoping consolidation of info in our EPrints repository will help alleviate some pain and we eagerly await developments from CASRAI-UK,  Jisc initiatives, and sibling Pathfinder projects re how to work better together with publishers.


Open Access Advocacy – Joining the Dots workshop

I recently attended the Open Access Advocacy workshop: Joining the Dots. This workshop was run by the UCL, Newcastle and Nottingham Jisc OA Pathfinder project to develop a more joined up approach to open access advocacy. It presented an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that were raised at E2E’s workshops in September 2014 and January 2015, including:
• Complexity of publishers’ Open Access policies and versions
• Promoting Open Access to our researchers
• Best ways of communicating change to different stakeholders
• How to avoid confusion surrounding different funders’ policies
• Earlier engagement with publication cycle (e.g. notification of acceptance)

All three members of the Pathfinder group presented their approaches to advocacy and engagement. Key messages for promotion and engagement were:
• Importance of senior management OA champions
• Simplify the OA message – a single page summary of information works well
• Competition amongst researchers – UCL offered a bottle of champagne to the millionth upload in their repository
• Advocacy is about listening to stakeholders, as well as informing them

There are still difficulties around engagement: finding the right person to speak to in departments, promoting different funders’ policies, avoiding a two-tiered approach (gold and green, funded and non-funded), finding the staff time to do this as OA policies proliferate, keeping information up-to-date as polices change.

We had group discussions which raised similar themes:
• The need to include the IT department, as well as the library and research management
• Avoid jargon
• Useful to get academics to discuss it with peers
• Small messages sent out regularly work well – little and often
• Write a short, sharp clear policy document with FAQs

The workshop also included presentations from three publishers; Taylor & Francis, BMJ and Oxford University Press. It was useful to hear about OA from the publishers’ perspectives and to understand it is complex and time consuming for them too. For example, Vicky Gardner from Taylor & Francis discussed how they have changed their acceptance email to authors to include information about a green OA option – previously the email was purely about gold. Sana Mulla from BMJ followed up the workshop by asking for help in user testing their new platform.

There is a tension between what publishers can offer and what research administrators and librarians would like. We would like additional information at the acceptance stage, but as Rhodri Jackson from Oxford University Press pointed out, the publisher’s relationship is with the author, so there is a limit to how much information they can give the library.

In the Q&A that followed, we asked the publishers for clearer information about OA policies, APCs etc. This information often sits in the author section – it would be helpful if all publishers could include this in a separate OA section for administrators. We also asked for publishers to provide a DOI on acceptance and for them to label the version of the article.

Steven Hill of HEFCE and Mark Thorley of RCUK both gave presentations from the funder’s perspective. They talked about how to communicate an Open Access policy, although their policies took different approaches to this. Both highlighted the importance of open research, with Mark Thorley saying that we must accept it will cost us money and Steven Hill that it is better to do less research but disseminate it better.

Among other things, we asked how funders can influence publishers (they can’t do this as they are not their customers) and how they can ensure that systems are in place (they have a responsibility, but aren’t duplicating existing systems).

There was considerable interest in this workshop and enough ongoing issues to suggest that it would be useful for us to take this forward and run a further Advocacy and Engagement workshop as part of our project.

EPrints Achievement

Really pleased today.

My colleague Mick Eadie moved the test open access environment (RIOXX, other open access fields, reporting) into our live environment and we successfully processed our first open access record through this route.

Covers everything we need for our spreadsheet and the Jisc spreadsheet that is being recommended for Charities Open Access Fund reporting.

We will be inviting some other Research Organisations to view this and discuss common outstanding issues.

Will share the code/plug-in/funtionality – details of route to be decided.  First some more live testing.



Well done Mick.  Celebratory coffee.


Workshop report: Open Access and the REF

Please find below our report on the second End-to-End workshop which took place in London on Monday 12th January. The workshop focused on metadata issues, particularly with a view to preparing for the next REF.


The workshop aimed to help promote working together across discipline and organisational divides as an Open Access community to raise and address issues associated with management of Open Access (OA) for the REF.

We talked about evolving experience of OA, and momentum building for the next REF, and continued discussions of a standard metadata profile for OA and workflows for supporting OA with key stakeholders.

Any questions feel free to comment below or contact the project team.


Project Update

Key activities over the last 3 months:

  • Delivery of Research Excellence Framework workshop.  The report will be issued shortly.  Due to demand we plan to advertise another workshop on this topic duly amended based on feedback from the last.
  • Received the awaited for RCUK Open Access plugin for EPrints and have been testing that against our requirements
  • Identified gaps from planned Jisc EPrints deliverables and set up a test version on EPrints. These are mainly bits of metadata that organisations need for management rather than data that is required for reporting to third parties such as REF, RCUK and EU. The plan is to move to live week commencing 16/03/15 and we will advertise some discussions around a demonstration of this.
  • Worked with the CASRAI UK Open Access Working Group to try and clarify some of the terminology used to desribe Open Access.


European Funding – FP7 Open Access Pilot

Hello All,

The following has been announced:


Details of how funding will be provided to follow soon.

EPrints Open Access Work

Hello All,

It looks like Jisc will be providing functionality to capture the open access information for:

RCUK (RIOXX plugin available now in baazar)


Horizon 2020


The E2E project is looking at other open access information required for internal management and compliance checking – i.e. everything else that is not required by these external parties.

This is an extract from our very informal play area.  My colleague here has also included a report so we can extract to the Charities Open Access Fund spreadsheet for reporting or manipulating data.  Discussions about what is required and how this might be delivered still at an early stage but we hope to engage more widely soon.


test system 20150220

CASRAI UK Open Access Working Group Update

Hi All,


I promised an update from the Open Access Working Group meeting that was held yesterday.

A reminder that the main current thrust of the group is to produce a data profile for open access.  That is a standard national data dictionary defining terms used for open access such as acceptance date, licence type or  embargo.  Inputs include funder requirements such as RCUK, Research Excellence Framework (REF) and European Union funding requirements as well as institutional requirements and specifications designed for commercial and non-commercial information systems.

The work is ongoing but it is hoped that by the end of March (now April) the first draft of the profile will be shared widely for comment.  This will include many fields and particularly those entities required for RCUK compliance.  The plan then is to iterate checking the profile against REF and other definitions of fields to make it as comprehensive as possible.