dlf fall 2012: institutional oa policy implementation: the joys and challenges
Post on 15-Jan-2015
258 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Institutional OA Policy Implementation: The Joys and Challenges
Presented to DLF, November 4, 2012
Catherine MitchellLisa Schiff
Justin Gonder
Access & Publishing GroupCalifornia Digital Library
UCSF Open Access Policy
• May 2012: UCSF faculty-led Open Access policy initiative passes the Academic Senate – applies to all ladder rank faculty.
[
Terms of the UCSF OA Policy• The license:
o For the purpose of open dissemination, each Faculty member grants to the Regents of the University of California, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, providing that the articles are not sold, and to authorize others to do the same.
o This policy does not transfer copyright ownership, which remains with Faculty authoring under existing University of California policy.
o Application of the license will be waived for a particular article or access delayed for a specified period of time upon express direction by a Faculty member to the University of California.
• The Deposit:o To assist the University in disseminating scholarly articles, each Faculty member will provide an
electronic copy of his or her final version of the article to the University of California by the date of publication.
o The University of California will make the article available in an open-access repository. o When appropriate, a faculty member may instead notify the University of California if the article will
be freely available in another repository or as an open access publication
• The Mandateo The faculty calls upon the Academic Senate and the University of California to develop and monitor a
service or mechanism that would render implementation and compliance with the policy as convenient for the Faculy as possible.
•Grant of nonexclusive license from Faculty to the Regents of UC•CC-BY-NC•No Copyright Transfer•License may be waived; access may be delayed
•Faculty provide final version by date of publication•Pub will be put in OA repository•Faculty may instead notify of other OA location
•Faculty require convenient compliance
UCSF/UC OA timeline
• May 2012: UCSF Policy passes• June 2012: Waiver/embargo workflow established
by CDL• December 2012: UC-wide Academic Senate will vote
on systemwide OA policy• June 2013: Robust deposit, waiver/embargo and
harvesting workflows will be implemented by CDL in partnership with campus libraries
Where will these OA publications live?
Focus of this Working Session
• Implementation requirements/challenges• Sample workflows for manual deposit• Harvesting complexities/solutions• Discussion topics:– How to engage faculty– Tracking publisher response– Conflating waivers & embargoes– Harvesting: to buy or to build– How to measure success – and for whom
Core implementation requirements
• Compliance with terms of UC OA policy• Compliance with publisher requirements• Accurate metadata• Efficient and painless for faculty
How do others do it?
What makes this so complicated?
• Multiple data sources:– Individual deposit, along with files deposited with waiver/embargo requests– Harvesting– Other OA repositories/publications
• Various publisher requirements in response to the policy– Waiver demands– Embargo time frames– Publication versions– Variability across titles within a single publisher
• Importance of correct metadata to signify identity of publication and its relationship to the version of record
• Necessity of copyright expertise and local library resources to help guide faculty through the waiver/embargo/deposit process
• Fundamental requirement that the workflow be efficient, minimal and intuitive for faculty
• Others?
And why is it even more complicated at the University of California?
• Consortial service – must be designed and developed for (potentially) 10 campuses
• Desire for a fully automated, centralized workflow that maintains a de-duped repository of pubs that link back to version of record
• Limited to no campus library resources to manage the deposit process manually
Anticipated Costs
• Technical development and maintenance• Harvesting solution• Campus library support• Copyright/intellectual property
education/support• Customer/technical support services
Necessary Resources
• CDL Access & Publishing Team• Campus co-investment?• Campus co-development?• Campus library staffing?• UC Office of the President support?
Where we are now:UCSF Implementation
Interaction with the publishers
• Letters sent to publishers explaining policy
• Publishers requiring a waiver in response:
– AAAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – ACS – 12 months embargo. Publisher’s version PDF allowed (when a policy in place.) – American Public Health Association (American Journal of Public Health) has indicated they may
impose an embargo or reject the policy– NAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – Nature - 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript – Project Hope (Health Affairs journal) – archiving not formally supported– Wiley-Blackwell – 0-24 months embargo, depending on the publication. Author’s final
manuscript
• Requests processed thus far:– Waiver: 67– Embargo: 4– Addendum: 13
Current Workflow
Where we are headed
Harvested metadata
Manualdeposit
Publisherrequirements
database
Current eScholarship
pubs database
Manualwaiver/embargo
request
Faculty correction/approval
+ file upload
Where we are headed -Harvesting
Harvesting Solutions Need to…
1. Pull in metadata/publication links from major publication sources– PubMed– Web of Science– CrossRef
Manually entry of publication data should be a last resort!
Harvesting Solutions Need to…
2. Evaluate and augment the record– Check for permissions against a locally
maintained publisher requirements database (Sherpa/Romeo is insufficient)
– Prevent duplication by checking against the existing OA repository holdings
Determine how to handle the record early on in the process.
Harvesting Solutions Need to…
3. Allow authors (or proxies) to – Claim/Reject– Modify metadata– Approve for submission to one or more locations– Manage the harvested publication record– Adjust/refine settings that impact harvesting
performance
Faculty need to have control.
Harvesting Solutions Need to…
4. Integrate with existing institutional systems to ease existing administrative burdens– Promotion and Tenure Systems– Awards and Compliance Systems– HR Systems
Integration = efficiencies for faculty and staff
Harvesting Solutions Need to…
5. Enable a seamless workflow
Harvest Publisher Requirements Check
Repository Deduplication Check
Faculty Alert
Faculty Modifications
Faculty Approval
Harvesting Solutions: Commercial
• Robust and flexible• Code maintained by 3rd party• Access to open and licensed
resources– arXiv PubMed– CiNii* RePEc– dblp Scopus*– Mendeley* – Web of Science*†
– CrossRef* British Library*– Google Books
What we don’t like…
• $$$ Requires new funding• Changes depend on vendor
responsiveness
What we like…
Harvesting Solutions: Homegrown
What we like…• Customized to fit our needs• Contributing to existing
community resources– An extension of BibApp ?
• Native integration with the rest of our scholarly communication services
What we don’t like• $$ Requires additional
resources or reallocation of existing resources
• Another system to maintain• No access to licensed
sources
Where we are headed – Deposit
Information that will help us guide users
• Who are you? Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable 3rd party lookup service.
• What’s the name of your article?
Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in external locations.
• Who did you publish with?
Connection to publisher database prevents users from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most appropriate version.
• When did / will you publish?
Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs to be reminded later.
• Did you publish in OA?Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables us to harvest metadata and file.• Will you make an OA
deposit elsewhere?
• Do you have an identifier for your article?
Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and externally.
image credit: CaliSpheregoo.gl/yCpiD
• Who are you? Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable 3rd party lookup service.
• What’s the name of your article?
Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in external locations.
• Who did you publish with?
Connection to publisher database prevents users from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most appropriate version.
• When did / will you publish?
Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs to be reminded later.
• Did you publish in OA?Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables us to harvest metadata and file.• Will you make an OA
deposit elsewhere?
• Do you have an identifier for your article?
Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and externally.
Information that will help us guide users
Using this information, we might:
• Check against a publisher / publication policy database
• Check against harvested & previously deposited content
• Attempt to harvest on demand
• Pre-fill metadata• Check SHERPA/RoMEO*
Tone: What’s the appropriate voice for this service?
Easily identifiable solutions
Clear path to additional support
What’s the minimum set of questions we need up front in order to provide
the most tailored, relevant experience
throughout the remainder of the deposit process?
Based on the previous questions, we want to run some automated checks:
- Have we already harvested this document?
- If not, is there anything we can harvest (such as metadata)?
- What do we know about the publisher’s policies?
- What do we know about our own agreements with the publisher?
Guidance on which version to upload
Potential to provide a warning if we suspect a waiver or embargo are
needed.
Example tailored experience
Ability to pre-fill author information based on login
credentials
Interactive feedback
Multiple opportunities to verify and modify
information.
Clear path to additional support
Final opportunity to verify and modify deposit.
Clear information on what to expect next and possible
next steps.
Where we are headed – Waiver/Embargo
Help! I think I need a waiver
from this policy!
Actually, our records indicate that a 6-month embargo should suffice.
image credit: Jarred m4r00n3d @ Flickrgoo.gl/2lyzj
Running checks against publisher / publication
database.
Also a potential to crowdsource the building of this database by storing
and verifying common responses.
Guidance on which options to select
Optional deposit
Easy access to requested documents
Discussion
How to engage faculty Tracking publisher response Conflating waivers & embargoes Harvesting: to buy or to build How to measure success – and for
whom
top related