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
| Jisc Services | Institutional workflows | OAWAL |
| SHERPA Romeo | Green/Gold workflow
Funder compliance/reporting HEFCE compliance/reporting |
2.1 Workflows. Traditional green model; 2.2 Workflows. Gold open access2.3 Funder mandates
2.3 Funder mandates
|
| SHERPA Juliet | Green/Gold workflow
Funder compliance/reporting HEFCE compliance/reporting |
2.1 Workflows. Traditional green model; 2.2 Workflows. Gold open access2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
|
| Sherpa Fact | Green/Gold workflow
Funder compliance/reporting HEFCE compliance/reporting |
2.1 Workflows. Traditional green model; 2.2 Workflows. Gold open access2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
|
| Publication Router
(SWORD) |
Green/Gold workflow
(Metadata Standards) |
2.1, Workflows. Traditional green model; 2.2 Workflows. Gold open access(3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators)
|
| Total cost of ownership
(Jisc Collections NESLi2 negotiations) |
APC payments
Funder compliance/reporting (Subscription renewals)
|
1.5 Advocacy. Budgeting for open access publishing; 2.6 Workflows. APC processing charges2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
(1.5 Advocacy. Budgeting for open access publishing; 2.5 Workflows. Pure vs. hybrid journals; TERMS ->)
|
| Jisc Monitor
(APC collection template) |
APC payments
Funder compliance/reporting HEFCE compliance/reporting (APC payments
Funder compliance/reporting Internal reporting, e.g. non funded GOA)
|
2.6 Workflows. APC processing charges2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates
(2.6 Workflows. APC processing charges 2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates 2.6 Workflows. APC processing charges)
|
| JISC-OU CORE | Discovery | 6.0 Discovery |
| IRUS-UK | Funder compliance/reportingDiscovery | 2.3 Workflows. Funder mandates6.6 Discovery. Usage data
|
Matching standards to Institutional workflows and OAWAL
| Standards | Institutional workflows | OAWAL |
| RIOXX | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google
|
| CASRAI/ISNI/Ringgold | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google
|
| CROSSREF/DOI | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google
|
| ORCID | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google
|
| FUNDREF | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google
|
| CROSSMARK | Funder compliance/reporting
Discovery |
2.3 Funder mandates; 3.1 Standards. OA metadata and indicators; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata6.1 Discovery. Addition of global content to discovery systems; 6.3 Discovery. Necessary metadata ; 6.4 Discovery. Exposure of local repository on Google |
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