PiratePad
Full screen

Server Notice:

hide

Public Pad Latest text of pad oai7-advocacy Saved Oct 17, 2011

 
     
Thursday 23rd of June
Piratepad writeup contributors: Bram Luyten (http://www.atmire.com)
 
Summaries
 
Programme
The Open Access conversation - more than just advocating for a mandate
Monica Hammes - University of Pretoria
 
University  of Glasgow, UK, advocacy through embedding: integrating repositories and research management systems
William Nixon - University of Glasgow
http://twitter.com/#!/williamjnixon
 
SPARC, Washington DC, advocacy at the national and international level
Heather Joseph - SPARC
 
Panel Discussion
 
Monica Hammes - The Open Access Conversation is more than just advocating for a mandate
 
It's odd that research management doesn't seem to be able to realize the inevitability of Open Access.
 
Analogy with facebook & twitter: why do people flock on there, while it's so hard to convince them to use their institutional repository (DSpace, Eprints).
 
Mandate = holy grail of open access?
Embark on an entire mandate seeking experience. But mandate is only a small part of the whole advocacy process.
 
Advocacy is meant to address a great deal of different stakeholders. Lots of different agendas. As an advocate, you need to understand all of these agendas and address them.
 
Popular starting point: the Institutional Repository. Convince people to take part. 
 
Other starting point: starting from scholarly communication. Why spending so much money on stuff that we gave away to publishers in the first place?
 
Other starting point: Open Access. The idea of making research openly available resonates with others agendas.
 
You have to have a repository with modern functionalities
 
You need to follow the OA debate, not only sticking to the green route, but following up on all things that are evolving and happening.
 
Good mandate requires
  • immediate depositorio
  • binding on all
  • rigorous attention to copyright
  • publishing in OA journals where possible
 
 
Now told as "the real" policy to have. University license says up front what the relation between university, author and piece of work is. Standardizes many things. We can't wait for the researchers to make their own amendments to contracts. Just impose an institutional one.
Harvard approach has many advantages
 
Do we need mandates?
  • a mandate will focus the advantages/benefits of OA and IRs
  • it shows the commitment
...
 
Additional advantages
  • Demonstrates that the U acccepts responsibility for the dissemination of its research outputs
  • Supports a new tance on author's rights expanding it to the U and the community which funded the research
  • Influences SC practices
  • ...
  • Leads to sustainability and simplification
  • Can lead to unified action, e.g. negotiations with publishers
  • ....
 
Researchers become more comfortable with the OA idea. They no longer feel threatened by the publishers. Example from Brazil: publishers have done so much for us, why should or could we challenge them?
 
Many people would not be undertaking their OA plans, without first seeing what has been accomplished at Pretoria and other institutions.
 
Example: telling a child to brush its teeth over and over again, until it becomes a habit/day to day practice. 
 
A place of many agendas
  • Researchers: have to provide IR content; play different roles
  • University management: financial andpolitical backing
  • Research leaders can influence different groups
  • Readers and IR end users (researchers, students, teachers, public) - beneficiaries. WE HAVE NEGLECTED THIS GROUP
  • Library and IT services - will do most of the work
  • Funders may have mandates of their own wich can be dealth with simultaneously
 
2 advocacy definitions
  • process of turning passive support into educated action by stakeholders
  • a planned,deliberate action
 
6 Critical success factors for a mandate
1. Create good value propositions for all stakeholders that will address their concept of value and their concerns over time
2. You repository should be more than a place for storage
3. Mandate implementation should be well resourced
4. The advocacy/marketing/outreach/publicity/lobbying continuum is a never-ending selling job
5. Time and timing is crucial
6. Stay in touch with new developments in Scholarly communication
 
 
Winning the hearts and minds of researchers
  • Whatever advances their careers and prestige in their research community
  • Visibility -> widest possible audience -> more usages -> citation and impact
  • Acknowledgement and credit
  • Control over how their research is used
  • Institutional funds to help pay APC's
  • Loyality to specific disciplinaty community
  • Whatever advances the progress of science
  • Contribution to the public good (rather low)
  • Responsibility towards University
 
Concerns becoming barriers
Lack of awareness and correct information
Self archiving infringes copyright and is teherefor illegal
Jeopardise publishing in certain journals and/or disrupt existing relationships with publishers
Time consuming & low priority
The don't think that OA and peer review and high impact goes together
The missing postprints
Interferes with traditional practices of scholars/researchers
 
What IR's offer is not perceived to be useful, and what is perceived to be useful is not offered by IRs
 
How to approach RESEARCHERS
  • Use every opportunity to remind them of advantages
  • Make sure they are well informed: face to face interactions, information sessions, events, material, whatever works for the individual
  • Give advice on copyright and create good tools to deal with it
  • Demonstrate that sucess and potential of the repository - what else it can do for them
  • Give them good statistics
  • Lower the threshold for participation
  • Start with champions and leave negative people in piece
  • Meet them in their different roles (address their concerns)
  • Talk about scholarly communication
 
 
Conversations: examples from the field
 
An important publich figure publicly stated "This looks good - I hope it can help me manage all of my writings". And from this case, a nice profile/advocacy case was created
 
Another converstation: I see no benefits from having my work in yet another repository especialy when it is unedited and unfinished. At an under-resourced U like this, there are better things to do than follow this ideological crusade.
 
 
 
Best way to reach the target audience is not always to target them DIRECTLY, but just flood the channels of information indirectly around them
 
Journal Editor example: OA will ensure taht everyone has access to our writings. OA is the answer for my journal and more exposure to our articles via the IR will make it even better.
 
Getting Management on Board
Whatever advances visibitilty and reputation of unviersity
- Showcasing research
- complete record
...
Better research use, monitoring and management
ROI
Whatever keeps researchers happy
 
 
Concerns from Management
Lack of awareness and proper understanding of the issues
more pressing challenges: student throughput for example (getting students get their degrees as efficiently as possible)
Legal issues, copyright
Cost and sustainability of OA programme
 
OA is a little bit lower down on the agenda, we need to take care about this
 
How to approach MANAGEMENT
  • Make sure they are well informed about OA & IR. Right statistics, right message. LITTLE TIME to talk to them. Every sentence counts
  • Link OA & IR to university strategy
  • Message: mandate is the only truly effective way to collect the univesity's entire research output
  • Tool to manage research performance and optimize spending
  • Demonstrate the potential and success of the IR - use convincing statistic
  • Timing is of the utmost importance
  • Engage with managers at all levels
  • Let their peers speak to them
 
Conversations
"the cat herder": This harvard mandate does not impress me - it's only for the Humanities. What's good for Ray Frost and QUT is surely good enough for us.
 
Audit of the library by Tom Cochrane (someone closer to her expertise). Tom's more believable etc. This DID convince the cat herder
 
The senior manager: Let's get on with it and let me help with the writing on the policy. 
 
The research manager
The Library is fantastic
Here's a real solution to the management of research reporting for government. Let's get this formalized.
 
What researchers value: A bigger share for readers
Level playing field for researchers worldwide
A service that blends with other workflows
Value-added services
 
 
Concerns for Readers
Lack of awareness
Limited content
Limited functionality
Material that can be trusted
Version clarity, ets
 
How to approach READERS 
(important stakeholders as well!)
An IR that goes beyond access and preservation
Engage studetns - the new generation of authors
Web sites, flyers, posters, post cards, bookmarks, buttons, e-mail campaigns, multimedia
Events, competitions and other fun things
General press to make the public aware
 
Carrots and Sticks
Universities just do not have the ability to coerce their faculty, nor would it be advisable to try.
BUT
Liege University: CVs for evaluation of staff for promotion/grant application based on items in ORBi. Same case for QUT
University of Zurich: Annual reposts of university based on Zora
Reminders
Did you do itin your backyard over the christmas holidays?
If you buy into publish or perish ...
 
Intersection of agendas, good timing trust (the UP experience)
  • Research reporting to government
  • Mangement: prestige and money
  • Researchers: money
  • Research Support Dept: collaboration for a difficult taks (research results reporting to the government and receiving some funding based on these reports; libraries helped in this excercise, and reported the missing research results for the amount of 20 mln SAR)
  • New U strategic plan. Library was a trusted partner, so really good collaboration with management. Whole idea of the policy was already there before Library came in
  • Library well positioned
 
 
People only get money for publishing in certain journals. Library created a list illustrating for which journals they would get funding. Researchers didn't have to go out there and find out for themselves.
 
A never ending selling job: Advocacy
Change is inevitable: University, research, OA, IRs, SC
Enthusiasm is contagious
Unified message and coherent strategy
Be well infomed and stay cool
Time and timing is crucial
 
VALUE ADDS UP: if you put it all together it speaks to a lot of people and is very powerful.
 
Questions: 
 
1. There is a problem with the term mandate (very legal, something you have to do sets up the block). Should we move away from this into something more like shareholders, investors, stakeholders... - Answer: Yes, shifting into policy could be a good step
 
2. Can you give some more information about your UP Scorecard?
 
We have an open scholarship unit. Looking at how many items in the repository. Looking at percentage of the institutions output that was captured in the repository. Scorecard is campus wide. Not a tool for judging/rating individual achievements.
 
3. It would be wonderful if the UP rector could write up his experience with OA. 
 
University  of Glasgow, UK, advocacy through embedding: integrating repositories and research management systems
William Nixon - University of Glasgow
Enlighten Service Development Manager
 
On a crusade to get rid of the word "repository" from the documentation. Enlighten is a great brand. Benefits of losing the word repository there.
 
A will be talking a lot about relationships and conversations with people
 
41,000+ records (about 10% of full text?)
 
"Mandate" listed as a "publication policy"
 
the Research System custom built with 100% compliance rate
 
Cradle to grave in submitting your grants, people, finance, ..
What it DOESN'T do: recording publication data.
This was an anopportunity to be complimentary with each other (research system and repository)
 
 
Shift in the landscape in terms of integration between CRIS systems and repositories. Example of deposit happening in CRIS, and exporting to repository.
In enlighten: deposit still happens in the repository. 
 
Star graph with research system in the middle. Other sources of information control their own info, and export it to the research system. 
 
JISC funded project on embedded repositories - relationships with research information systems and repositories, learning services
 
 
The "SILO" approach for a repository doesn't work.
 
Only advocacy doesn't work. We need to be embeded.Repository  is connected to the research system, will be used for REF 2014, feeds are embeded into publication pages,  there is a twitter feed, etc. 
 
LDAP and single signon reduces barriers. Absolutely important in lowering the threshold. ld. NO account creation enforcing for the users.
 
Our embedded journey
  • JISC's "Enrich" and "Enquire" projects
  • Information environment Programme 2009-11 (Inf11)
  • Embedding Enlighten alongside other university systems
  • Enabling sign-on with institutional ID (GUID)
  • Managing author disambiguation. Not doing anything with ORCID yet but very interested.
  • Linking publications to funder data from Research System
  • Feeding institional research profile pages
  • Piloting the collection of output, impact and esteem data via the repository
 
Capturing non traditional information into the repository - demonstrating the impact
 
Embedding (and integrating) is about
  • Being stiched into the fabric of the institution
  • Culturally, technically, holistically
  • Added value (for the)
  • Researcher, funders, institution, UK Plc
  • Re-Use
  • REF, Research profiles, interoperability, crosswalks and metadata schema
  • Reducing Duplication - users and librarians hate duplications
  • Ingest, workflows, reporting
  • Exploiting new opportunities
  • data mining, business intelligence, analytics, metrics, rankings, visibility
 
Re-use, re-use, re-use: the more it's used the more value there is.
 
We need to take responsibilities for managing our own publications. 
 
Repositories and Research Systems
  • People
  • Processes
  • Policies
 
It's about partnerships, relations and conversations
 
People: partnerships
Academic staff
Departmental administrators
University Librariy
IT Services
Corporate Communications
Human resources
Archives
 
Author disambiguation slide. Linking publications to individual users. Canonical names vs publication names. All linked to staff identifier: completely agnostic about variations of the name. Another link to ORCID, linking this all together.
Pushing information back to the authors - this engages the academics
 
A lot of work with U web management team
 
Static way, static lists ... Web team was very much on board to improve this.
 
A lot of this about reputation of researchers and ownership
 
Linking outputs to Awards
previously: some free text fields for publication output etc
Now: taking an XML feed of all output activities, search & selecting what project publications are linked to.
 
Browse by research funder is the result of this linking.
There is an additional funder and project information - project code, award no, project name, principal investigator, etc, there will be also possibility to see the project
 
 
University publications policy - june 2008 (e.g. the "mandate" but not named like that)
 
Objectives
To increase the visibility of researh publications produced by staff employed by or associated by the university of glasgow.
To ensure that research oututs are prepared and curated in a way which helps maximise visibility...
 
A lot of advocacy, started with encouraging deposit. VP for Research was very supportive and suggested the mandate. U Senate approved the policy. 
Copyright related statement: where copyright permits (not the Harvard approach)
 
 
Really interesting impact. 
 
Research Excellence Framework 2014
 
National assesment excercise, academics needs to provide publications details for assessments
 
REF and MiniREF (oct-dec 2010)
REF 2014
internal exercise
enlighten being used as the platform to carry out this exercise
Using modified version of the RAE add-on software developed by southampton for the RAE 2008.
Has significantly increased staff engagement with the repository - which is continued beyond excercise
 
MiniREF in figures
Over 1200 colleagues returned data
Exercise ran just over 4 weeks
More than 4000 additional records added during this exercise
700+ email enquiries
4083 selections made (3085 articles)
 
 
 
Key success factors for Enlighten and the MiniREF
 
Comprehensive coverage
SSO (GUID) in place
Additional functionality for selecting records (IRRA)
Impact and Esteem data
Reporting options (Word and Excel)
Devolved REF Administrators
Staff "impersonation" options - research office was doing this on behalf of researchers ( delegated submissions)
 
We have also asked for impact and esteem data (fellowships, lectures, etc)
 
 
Lessons learned
mini REF interesting exercise on advocacy: Repository at the VERY CENTER of this effort
 
Further embedding
  • Working with college staff to address their needs
  • Searching Web of Science within Enlighten
  • Enabling Open Access Repository Junction deposit (SWORD).
  • Applying CERIF model for export (IRIOS and CERIFy)
  • Dealing with Data - funding bodies are already demanding data management plans
  • Updating our REF functionality
 
 
Our Lessons:
  • Advocacy, advocacy, advocacy
  • People (relationships_
  • Different needs
  • External influences
  • Process (and Systems)
 
A full text mantra for Enlightenment - 4R's
Remind
Reignite
Reassure
Reiterate
Result
(by Morag Greig)
 
 
Questions
 
1. What about leading universities without repositories? Cape town proud of rankings, but institution is now waking up.The approach in UCT is using the CMS for harvesting publications - what is your opinion on this? No library driver. Being pretty passive on the issue.
 
Answer: What you're building is probably very close to a repository. Encouragement to be involved as library staff. Some of the GLA work comes from library first. The more people involved the better & see how library can provide support.
 
SPARC, Washington DC, advocacy at the national and international level
Heather Joseph - SPARC
 
SPARC mission - a Catalyst for action
 
Library membership organization. Expand the dissemination of research and scholarship in a way that leverages digital, networked technology, reduces financial pressures on libraries, and creates a more open system of scholarly communication. (pretty small task ?)
 
Real champions of open access as end goal.
 
Looking for pressure points in the scholarly communication marketplace. 
 
Free availability
read, download, copy, distribute, print, search/link, crawl ... for any LAWFUL purpose
coupled with the right to use
(BOAI definition)
 
Three program areas
Educate stakeholders on opportunities for change in scholarly communication system.
Incubate demonstrations of business publishing models that advance positive change in the system.
Advocate for policies that create an environment where a more open system of scholarly communication can flourish
 
Creating open acces as a new norm. Not the friendly alternative, left-wing option, ...
 
We want to change the game
 
All Politics is Local 
 
... And this is our backyard (washington DC)
 
Although everything action is localized, there is an ultimate end goal to influence the highest decision makers.
 
8 billion per year (STM publishing market)
The stakes are very high. 
 
not diametrically opposed but it puts SPARC in opposition to the big players in some discussions.
 
The biggest challenges of advocacy is to be present at the place where decisions are made
 
SPARC = getting a seat at the table, being present when discussions are happening. Influence next, but getting at the table first. We're not entitled to a seat just because we want to be there. We have to bring something to the table (big representation, other value)
 
New language
Finding a way to convince people,  
 
Agenda for policy makers can't be approached by merely complaining about the current situation
 
"Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available... And by doing so, they would maximise social return on public investment."
 
job creation
innovation
competitiveness
----> those are the things that policy makers care about
 
Bottomline is really the bottomline for policy makers (money, money, money)
 
4 principles of taxpayer access
 
1. American taxpayers are entitle to open access on the Internet to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on research funded by the U.S. Government
2. Widespread access to the information contained in these articles is an essential, inseparable compontent of our nations' investment in science. 
3. This information should be shared in cost-effective ways that take advantage of the Internet, stimulate further discovery and innovation, and advance the translation of this knowledge into public benefits.
4. Enhanced access to information will lead to usage by millions of individuals, scientists, and professionals, and will deliver an accellerated return on the taxpayer's investments
 
Critical mass
 
Alliance for taxpayer access - http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
 
A Clear Ask
 
2 years of work to get a few sentences in the law (NIH policy).
To insert "herewith" took another 8 months ;)
 
A similar work was going on in the UK and Canada, there was a shared wording. 
 
No one wants to be left behind. 
 
Results
NIH policy enacted into US law april 2008
Over 2.2 million full text articles now available via pubmed central
Nearly 500,000 unique users per day
99% articles downloaded at least once
25% U users, 40% citizens, 17% companies, remainder governments or others
 
More Results
NIH language serves as basis for sustained U.S. national advocacy on multiple fronts
proposed legislation S.1737 The Federal Research Public Access Act 2010
Proposed action by other Departments and Agencies
White House Request for Public Informatin and Interagency Working Group
 
Similar successes - Canadian Institue of Healther Research, RCUK Biomedical Council Public Access Policy
 
Keeping an eye on closely related communities - OERs, Open Data
 
Emerging Approaches
Deposit
Permissions - OERs
Management policy approach - Open Data
 
 
Permissions Approach
US Deps ed & labour: 500 million program (of eventual 2 billion) creation of OERs
Condition of grant that all materials created as a result should be available to public under a CC-BY license
All materials-training materials, curricula, ... created as result of funding are openly accessible to public
 
Management Approach
Investigators who apply for NSF funding must now include explicit plan for management and sharing of digital data in proposals
"Softer" approach - designed to facilitate cultural change
 
Emerging trends
 
Set the default to open
Recognition that maximizing access maximizes benefits
Level of awareness of policy makers growing
National discussions growing in frequency; OA, open data, and OERs increasingly included in the policy discussions.
Increased emphasis on condition funding - trend of "Open Grant Making"
 
Opportunities
National Advocacy efforts are (very!) loosely coordinated
Demonstrated effectiveness of consistent message. 
Structures and networks in place to facilitate an explicit, sustained effort to help coordinate international advocacy
 
We could be more effective in the community, coordinating INTERNATIONAL advocacy.
 
Questions
Question: <<???>>
 
Answer: A lot of the new techniques (datamining etc) can not be used on the pubmed central database. Shorten the timespan of embargo & going to full CC-BY license afterwards.
 
Comments from David Prosser:
- We have the best arguments
- We are right! :)
- Arguments against open access were clearly wrong. OA Journals didn't undermine peer review. The models are NOT unsustainable. People outside of academia DIDN'T have full access. Green OA & selfs deposit didn't undermine traditional publishing.
- Kinds of presentations are totally different compared to 8 years ago.
- Prime ministers: not a matter of whether we move to open access, but WHEN moving to open access.