Report from Open Access Workshop

Please find below our initial report from the Open Access Workshop held on 4th September.

We have a lot  to do but are very aware that others are working on some of the issues raised too so hopefully the work AND the ideas to resolve issues will be shared.

We will update this blog regularly with actions we have taken or to note if another group is offering some advice on a specific aspect that arose.

The updated spreadsheet of fields required for open access will be posted soon and we will be discussing this with CASRAI-UK Open Access Working Group and other stakeholders.

Any questions feel free to comment below or contact me direct

Project Update

What have we achieved so far?

Our first workshop a lively discussion around information requirements and issues associated with Open Access took place on 4th September.  The report will be posted soon on this blog.    The workshop slides and outline can be found at

The workshop findings contributed to the ARMA and other submissions to the RCUK OA implementation consultation.

Considerable work has been done on identifying and discussing information requirements for Open Access.  An updated list will be included in the outputs of the workshop.  There are many questions and actions to take forward particularly about RIOXX which is a new standard that RCUK are hoping we can all use for reporting on RCUK related publications.

We have been looking at baseline cost of managing Open Access and are looking forward to trying out tools that our sister Pathfinder projects are designing rather than re-inventing the wheel for this in any detail.

There has been discussion with other projects to allocate work and to join forces on some aspects.  We have spoken with the Edinburgh led project about joining up on defining metadata requirements.  We are involved in the CASRAI-UK Open Access working group through which we hope we can soon manifest a more formal standard ‘profile’ for Open Access metadata.

We are very keen to manifest an initial live instance of all of the Open Access data in EPrints and test this at individual sites.  We are looking forward to testing the RIOXX plug-in which we understand covers some of the Open Access fields and hope we can work out how this will all fit together.

Early 2015 we plan a Research Excellence Framework workshop and we are working with other parties to ensure that the many workshops and presentations in support of this area are complimentary and each offers something new or unique.

We will keep blogging and emailing distribution lists to share our outputs, questions and comments.

RCUK OA Compliance – Southampton report – CORRECTION

Please see below the amended RCUK OA Compliance evidence report. In the original post, we had transposed the figures for pure and hybrid, so that pure was listed as costing more.

The corrected figures show that an average cost for pure was £1010 and an average cost for a hybrid APC was £1765.

RCUK_OA_review_Southampton RCUK OA Review – Evidence – amended

The data report remains unchanged:

Southampton RCUK OA Review – Data

RCUK OA Compliance – Southampton report

N.B. Please see the updated version of this. There was a mistake in the evidence report listing the hybrid/pure costs.

Southampton submitted our OA compliance report to RCUK today. We’ll publish the underlying data next week.

Southampton RCUK OA Review – Data

Southampton RCUK OA Review – Evidence

RCUK Open Access Compliance

Finally managed to submit this report:

You will identify several issues associated with us holding the data required across several different systems.

We have been asking around for an option to link to the various reports and data from different organisations from one place…..still working on this to facilitate sharing






Summary of Jisc Initatives











JiscRSSP-Poster-V4-24Jul2014 pdf version

Charity Open Access Fund

Arthritis Research UK, Breast Cancer Campaign, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research and the Wellcome Trust are launching a new joint fund for open access.  Read more:

There is a briefing 1st October in London.  Not sure if this is full.  The contact at Wellcome is


Open Access Workshop 4th September



Embedded image permalink




Thanks to everyone who contributed to today’s workshop.  Loads of great ideas and lots of questions.

The summary will be posted on this blog soon and disseminated via various mailing lists.  There are a considerable number of actions arising.  We will try to get them all moving and report back via this blog.

Here are slides and handouts:

Workshop Introduction and Outline  Powerpoint

Jisc OA Related Activities   Powerpoint

RIOXX and CASRAI  Powerpoint

Jisc Activity Summary Handout

Any questions in the meantime comment below or contact one of the project team:

Open Access Compliance..?

As I head towards the E2E workshop on Open Access Issues and Possible Solution which will major on metadata requirements for monitoring, reporting on and evidencing compliance with various Open Access mandates, I am reminded of a recent discussion I had with a senior official from the US NIH (National Institutes of Health).  The NIH are one of the largest funders of medical and health related research in the United States of America and also fund outside the US. They could perhaps be considered to be the equivalent of the MRC, Wellcome Trust and AMRC all rolled into one… well not really but you get the idea.

Anyway, back to Open Access, or as they call it in the US, Public Access.  There has been a lot happening since the February 22, 2013 memorandum by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) which includes access to data as well as articles.  As might be imagined the NIH use PubMed and have a long tradition of supporting (and paying for) Open Access.  As in the UK they require that research outputs (mainly journal articles) produced from research that they fund is made freely available, immediately where possible, and if not then after the usual sort of embargo period.  Like the next-REF requirements for the UK (and perhaps further afield if the franchise migrates!?) the clock starts ticking at the point of acceptance (unlike the RCUK mandate which is based on the date of publication).

Being a large federal funder with a lot of clout that has being doing this for a while you might imagine that compliance rates would be fairly high.  The reported level is now about 85% (if I recall correctly, up slightly from the 82% in the next link) which considering the Wellcome compliance levels of about 69% is quite startling.  When I quizzed him further on compliance criteria I was further amazed that in order to be compliant the article has to be OA immediately on acceptance, none of this 3 month window for sorting things out.  85% compliance immediately on acceptance – surely that is not right?  Well further probing confirmed this… whilst articles are not OA compliant if they are not immediately OA on acceptance, if, at any point in the future they become freely available, then at that point they become OA compliant.  Yes you heard it right, yet another take on what OA compliance means!

So, I am looking forward to the #E2EOA workshop, but I fear that there may still be more questions than answers at this stage… but at least we are moving in the right direction!

RIOXX What is it for?

Ah I think I have a better understanding.

RIOXX is a list of key metadata fields required to report to RCUK

We can map existing fields in our systems to this (or add new fields if there are gaps).

The EPrints and DSpace plug-ins are intended for us to map to RIOXX and then export data in format suitable for RCUK reporting.

Test versions coming soon.

RIOXX also looking at reporting tools for REF in a similar fashion but a journey and consultation on this still to take place so there is time to work with Jisc and RIOXX on this.  Possibly envisaging REF plugins for these systems that allows mapping of existing fields where systems can’t or don’t hold these for whatever reason, and ability to add data to the extract outwith the system if necessary.