| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | This file is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence 4.0 (CC-BY) - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Institution | Huddersfield University | University of Hull | University of Lincoln | University of Glasgow | Leeds Beckett University | Queen Mary University of London | Keele University | Bournemouth University | University of Sussex | Cardiff University | Northumbria University | Teesside University | University of Reading | ||||||||||||||
4 | Contact (optional) | Graham Stone, g.stone@hud.ac.uk | Chris Awre, c.awre@hull.ac.uk | Paul Stainthorp, pstainthorp@lincoln.ac.uk | valerie.mccutcheon@glasgow.ac.uk | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Systems environment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Repository software | September 2014 | Running a hosted version of EPrints 3.2 used for all University research outputs – full text OA where possible | Hydra/Fedora – this is used for all digital content collections the University needs to have managed, including open access materials. | EPrints version 3.3.12,used for all digital content collections the University needs to have managed, including open access materials. | EPrints for all research outputs - publications, datasets etc. Enlighten is running 3.3.10 Research Data and Theses (on the dromaius server are running 3.3.12) | DSpace for all research outputs including theses and datasets. QMRO is running DSpace 1.7 | Hosted EPrints 3.2.2 (Chocolate Cake) contains fulltext research outputs only | ||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Repository software | March 2015 | Due an upgrade very shortly | No change | No change; though about to start external audit of our EPrints configuration. | Recently migrated to EPrints version 3.3.12, development ongoing | Currently have v3.2 on development environment due to for rollout late May | EPrints, recently migrated from IntraLibrary | EPrints 3.2.3 (Battenburg) | Eprints for publications and other research outputs | Eprints 3.2.3 (Battenburg) | DSpace v3 | EPrints 3.3.9. Repository is research outputs (excluding research data for which a separate repository is planned). | |||||||||||||||
9 | Repository software | September 2015 | Migrated to EPrints 3.3 (hosted) over the summer - after some teething troubles we also had the RIOXX plug-in installed. The ORCiD plug-in is Imminent | No change - specification for adding RIOXX/REF metadata compatibility for journal articles has been developed and will be implemented over the next six months | No change; technical audit of EPrints software has been completed and the results are being reviewed | EPrints 3.3 | EPrints 3.3.12 | No change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
10 | Repository software | March 2016 | No change. Self-deposit based around RIOXX record will shortly be rolled out | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | CRIS | September 2014 | A business case is being prepared to implement a CRIS | Converis 4.8 – this is currently under review. Converis 5 has been released, and we are reviewing our needs post-REF 2014 to assess whether this or another system best meets our needs. | n/a, although Worktribe Awards Management System (AMS) provides some CRIS functions and records information on externally-funded research projects. | Our Research System is linked to our repository and this forms our CRIS. Research System moving to Agresso late 2015 though which system is largely irrelevant as long as we have the functionality. | Symplectic Elements 4.7 | Symplectic Elements 4.4.1.207 managed by Research and Enterprise Office | ||||||||||||||||||||
12 | CRIS | March 2015 | No change | A tender for a new CRIS is currently being put together and is due to go out in April/May. It is planned to have this implemented for early 2016 | No change. | Symplectic Elements - linked to EPrints. Running v.4.12 which includes new deposit on acceptance workflow | Upgraded to Symplectic Elements 4.10 in December 2014; testing of 4.12 on development environment due before easter | Sympectic Elements; recently integrated funder data from pre-existing University system | Testing 4.11 in development environment | None | Currently in the process of implementing Converis for research projects and data | Currently in the process of procuring a system. | None | None | ||||||||||||||
13 | CRIS | September 2015 | Currently in the tender process - using the competitive dialogue process to award the tender | The tender process is at marking stage, hence we expect a decision by the end of October. Implementation has been delayed to July 2016. | A limited pilot of a locally-developed "Research Bridge", which has some CRIS-like features and which links data from multiple systems, has begun and is awaiting formal approval | Our Research System is linked to our repository and this forms our CRIS. Research System moving to Agresso planned 2016 though which system is largely irrelevant as long as we have the functionality. | None | We will be using PURE. Still at an early stage of implementation. | None | No change | ||||||||||||||||||
14 | CRIS | March 2016 | Worktribe adopted as new research information systems, and is being rolled out during 2016. This will cover the whole reserch lifecycle, from project grant application through to output management and dissemination. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Other systems used to support open access | September 2014 | A module in Agresso has been developed to support pre and post award, this will be used for some areas as we prepare the CRIS business case | (1) We use our portal to provide access to online forms for OA fund applications (currently RCUK and Sage schemes). This generates emails to a shared mailbox for ongoing processing and management. (2) We are looking to replace our costing and pricing tool, and any new system will need to reference OA funding within bids. (3) A research storage system is being tendered for that will support open access to data amongst other uses. | (1) CKAN, pilot/beta software for research data storage and manipulation, including open access to research data. (2) other systems are being scoped/specified as part of a high-level requirements exercise for Research Information Services. | We do not have forms. Low barrier email request generates work for library staff who enter on spreadsheets just now and some details end up in our repository. Hoping to do away with the spreadsheet and have all the details in EPrints as an output of our E2E project. There is also some detail in our Finance and Library serials systems. 5 minute presentation here might explain further http://e2eoa.org/2014/10/07/open-access/ | Finance (Agresso) data; spreadsheets for monitoring and reporting, and shared mailbox for requests | |||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Other systems used to support open access | March 2015 | No change | (1) No change. (2) A replacement costing and pricing tool is part of the tender for a new CRIS (see above). (3) The storage tender is nearly complete. (4) NEW We have used the Libguide system to produce an online guide for open access for local use - http://libguides.hull.ac.uk/openaccess | (1) CKAN is not being actively developed; the decision has been made to use EPrints as the primary system to record the existence of research datasets. (2) Some progress on high-level requirements relating to data storage. | A module in Agresso has been developed to provide an integrated online tool to assist in the preparation and review of research or enterprise project proposals, ready for submission to funders. | Agresso spreadsheets for monitoring and reporting | One major School is using Symplectic | Internal spreadsheet used to track OA costs; shared mailbox for requests. | Shared mailbox | Locally developed database through which authors request funds to cover APCs. Also records whether successful or rejected and some payment details. | |||||||||||||||||
17 | Other systems used to support open access | September 2015 | No change | (1) and (2) No change. (3) This is now being implemented. Complementary to this we have also just launched a University Box.com service with, in principle, unlimited storage. (4) This has now been supplemented by a new Research Services Team website at http://www.hull.ac.uk/lli/research. | A business case covering the use of EPrints as the primary system to record the existence of research dataset, and on high-level requirements relating to data storage, is being prepared for formal approval. A new, separate instance of EPrints for datasets is being considered | After completing previous data collection on spreadsheet to the end of funder years (July 2015 for RCUK, September 2015 for COAF) we have dispensed with spreadsheets and record the data direct onto our new EPrints Open Access tab. All of the information we need is in EPrints and we have tested reports with Jisc APC team and can extract what is required for reporting. We have also done some school and college reports and continue to improve these. Note as expected the official finance records reside on the University Finance System. We are copying final cost etc to EPrints. | No change | Shared Mailbox, LibGuides | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
18 | Other systems used to support open access | March 2016 | (1) - no change. (2) - this is being addressed through the new CRIS. (3) No recent developments, with Box service being taken up widely. Discussions ongoing re: further storage implementation. (4) No change. (5) NEW We have been assessing Jisc Monitor for potential local use in managing open access records. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Integration between systems | September 2014 | No change | (1) Integration between Converis and Hydra has had ongoing technical issues on the Converis side. Materials that need to be in Hydra are currently input directly. | n/a | Our HR, Student, Finance and Research Systems have been integrated since 1994. EPrints repository was linked into this core system network 2010. However OA finance info is not linked and needs some further work in identifying unique cost information. | Integration between Symplectic Elements and DSpace has been in place since 2010; integration between HR and Elements since 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Integration between systems | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change | Elements->EPrints integrated; development work ongoing to crosswalk metadata between systems. Ultimately the intention is to pass data from Agresso module to Elements where it can be linked with associated users/publications, and also passed over to EPrints where to be displayed on the associated record(s) and be easily searchable | Currently working on integration between Student information (SITS) and Symplectic Elements to provide CRIS access to PGRs; also working on grants integration for Elements | Fairly good integration between Symplectic and EPrints, still some issues with exchange of bibliographic metadata between the two | Converis and Eprints are expected to run in parallel for now, but there may be a future project to migrate everything to Converis. Symplectic will be phased out. | None currently, though we will face this issue once CRIS is implemented. We will be keeping Eprints. | None | None | ||||||||||||||||
21 | Integration between systems | September 2015 | No change | No recent developments. | A limited pilot of a locally-developed "Research Bridge", which has some CRIS-like features and which links data from multiple systems, has begun and is awaiting formal approval | No change | None | No change | ||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Integration between systems | March 2016 | We are debating the precise link between the CRIS and repository, and which role each will play. Current thinking is for the CRIS to manage the lifecycle and public face, with the repository used as archive and metadata feed to external systems as required. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Other | September 2014 | Staff profiles, including a list of publications supplied by a direct feed from the Repository are available. Huddersfield has been a member of IRUS-UK since July 2012 and participated in PIRUS | (1) We are actively seeking to improve crawling of Hydra by Google. (2) Hull became a contributing member of IRUS-UK in September 2014 | (1) Lists of publications are displayed on staff profile website. (2) Lincoln became a contributing member of IRUS-UK in June 2014 | Staff profiles long standing. We used to bulk upload to ROS and are keen to resolve this so that bulk uploads can again be done to avoid re-keying. | Publications feeds are extracted to an external database which is then used to provide researcher feeds to staff webpages; not universally used at present | Publications are displayed on staff personal website | ||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Other | March 2015 | no change | (1) No change. Initial addition of metadata to the page headers has improved Google access (although some potential improvements have been identified), whilst Google Scholar remains a mystery! There is Hydra community effort in the US to have Hydra repositories added to Scholar. (2) No change | (1) the staff profile system (inc. display of EPrints lists) is being reviewed and re-spec'ed. (2) Human Resources department are leading on becoming members of ORCID. | Publication feeds are generated via the Elements API and embedded on research-staff web-profiles. We are also developing reporting functionality via the API. | Publications feeds are extracted and used to provide researcher publications tabs on staff webpages | Our staff must complete a Personal Research and Innovation Plan aligned to their appraisal. This contains a record or recent activity which includes a feed from Eprints. It also has an element which allows forward planning of publications etc. We are investigating ways this could be used to flag upcoming Gold OA charges. | Staff research profiles link to relevant repository place | Publications feeds from repository to staff and School profile web pages in web CMS. | ||||||||||||||||||
25 | Other | September 2015 | Joined the Jisc ORCiD consortium in August 2015. Discussing roll out | (1) and (2) no change. We are about to join the Jisc ORCID consortium. | (1) the staff profile system (inc. display of EPrints lists) is still being reviewed and re-spec'ed. (2) the University has joined the ORCID consortium and we are engaging ORCID about the technical challenges of implementation | Test of publications data sent to ResearchFish November 2015 as part of bulk upload pilot. | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Other | March 2016 | (1) No change, though this has been pushed higher up the agenda as academics wish to engage and benefit from open access more. (2) We are members of the Jisc ORCID consortium, and are planning a rollout alongside implementation of the new CRIS, Worktribe. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Workflow environment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Submission/deposit | September 2014 | Academics are encouraged to deposit their own material. Mediated deposit is also available. Sword deposit by RJB/Publications Router since May 2014 | (1) Articles have been submitted through Converis, but due to ongoing technical integration issues, materials are currently added to Hydra manually. (2) The REF submission outputs are being added to Hydra via batch ingest transfer from Converis’s database behind the scenes. (3) Online templates are provided for different material types as required, or a generic template used. | Articles are deposited by the author, with or without assistance from repository staff, or by repository staff. Scopus is crawled for new records. For new staff, imports are made from other repositories, Scopus, Mendeley or Google Scholar. | The main route is via our repository team who do much of the work. We encourage authors to contact the library and we take on as much as we can. Some other administrators also upload info. Authors can do thier own uploads. All entries are reviewed by the repository team. | Publications records with file upload been provided since 2010; researchers undertake on a voluntary basis at the moment. Mediated deposit on published content. Self-deposit and approval for other research related content (such as technical reports) via direct deposit to DSpace | |||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Submission/deposit | March 2015 | No change | (1) No change. (2) This batch ingest went well, and we are now working our way through the collection to make as many available as possible. (3) The journal template is being developed to accommodate RIOXX metadata. (4) NEW Self-archiving workflow for REF deposit is being scoped for introduction in Q3 2015. | No change, except that Publications Router (Repository Junction) is also now being used as a source of records. | Users enter acceptance metadata into their account in Elements and upload their final accepted manuscript - metadata/file are transferred to EPrints workflow where admin can review and make record live (with restricted access to file) | Beginning to prompt researchers to upload files to DSpace when claiming or creating records in Elements; communications with researchers also now prompting deposit on acceptance | Staff deposit via Symplectic Elements and then deposits are reviewed by repository staff prior to publicaton on EPrints | Academics are encouraged to deposit their own material on EPrints. Mediated deposit is also available if offered by the School. | Academic authors can access an online API that uses DOIs to deposit publications in EPrints - all checked by repository staff before being made live | Self-deposit is mandated, but in reality often this is mediated by Scholarly Publications team. | Authors alert library staff to publications, all deposit is managed by library staff | 1) Academics deposit own material. Required to do at point of acceptance. Can delegate to colleagues in their School. 2) Sword deposit by Router since September 2014. Repository staff validate all deposits before making publicly visible. | |||||||||||||||
30 | Submission/deposit | September 2015 | 1) Working on RIOXX functionality after recent plug-in installation. 2)Working with Router on new implementation | (3) Adding RIOXX functionality is currently ongoing. This will serve the self-archiving workflow indicated in (4) above. | No change | As above but note that actually much traffic initially comes via our open access mailbox and so initial entry by those dealing with the mail. It is much more efficient now we do not duplicate information on spreadsheets. | No change | No change | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||
31 | Submission/deposit | March 2016 | Self deposit about to be rolled out for wide use. This will then segway into use of the new RIS later in the year. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Full text/metadata capture | September 2014 | Full text is preferred and repository staff attempt to source this from academics/publishers. Metadata is allowed to give a complete publications record | Hydra currently only takes items with full-text. We are looking to add the capability of linking to remotely held content as well, primarily for data. | Full text is preferred and repository staff attempt to source this, but metadata only is allowed for completeness | Both depending on what is allowed by publishers. We drive for full text where possible. | Full text only | |||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Full text/metadata capture | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change. | Emphasis on full-text to pre-empt HEFCE requirements - EPrints is full text only with Elements as metadata store. | Full text and metada only since January 2015; took the decision that it was better to capture records and then follow up with prompt for accepted manuscripts | Both depending on what publishers will allow | All researchers are required to deposit metadata; this is being extended to full-text for articles and conference papers with an ISSN from June 2015 | Staff are required to deposit metadata, but only "strongly encouraged" to deposit full text where publisher policies allow | Full-text (AAM) mandated for journal articles and conference proceedings, but in many cases this is not immediately available and requires chasing | Both, repository staff will advise authors to add full text | Metadata required for all research outputs. Back catalogues pre-current REF cycle optional. Full text mandatory for all articles and conference proceedings accepted for publication from 1st October 2014 onwards. Full text optional for all other types of publication. | |||||||||||||||
34 | Full text/metadata capture | September 2015 | No change | No change | No change | No change | No Change | No Change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
35 | Full text/metadata capture | March 2016 | We have been adding some metadata-only records to fulfil the HEFCE open access policy where the items themselves are under embargo. Long-term all such records should have full-txt attached. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | File format | September 2014 | PDF preferred for articles, other media allowed for conference papers and art, design and music | PDF is preferred, though Hydra will take any format as required by the author. | PDF is preferred, though EPrints will take any format as required by the author. | PDF is preferred, though EPrints will take any format as required by the author and library staff will 'PDF' word etc for authors. | PDF for articles where possible, but all file formats supported by DSpace accepted | |||||||||||||||||||||
37 | File format | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change | Word / PDF is accepted - prefer to make available in dual format | No change | Deposits are either PDFs or Word files, EPrints can handle both formats | PDF is preferred | Not specified, but invariably PDFs | All accepted. Where Word, Open Office etc. files are submitted for text-based outputs, we retain the original file and add a PDF version. | Usually PDF, some images | PDF preferred. Other formats for non-text outputs | |||||||||||||||
38 | File format | September 2015 | No change - with reference to Hull, we do leave the Word file in as retricted if it has been deposited by the user | No change. We have been debating about how much we should keep the original format as well as the PDF, and may do this in some circumstances. | No change, although we are trying to keep original versions of documents where possible, for the sake of completeness and transparency | PDF is preferred | No change | No change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
39 | File format | March 2016 | No change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Multiple file items | September 2014 | Research output with multiple files as stored as part of the same item, e.g. art and design material. Where a word doc has been supplied, it is converted to PDF and both files are stored on the same record | Where files are copies of each other (e.g., a PDF and Word version) they will be delivered as part of the same record. Where the content differs (e.g., article and data), multiple records will normally be created and linked to each other. | (1) Where files are copies of each other (e.g., a PDF and Word version) they will be delivered as part of the same record. (2) Multiple documents which comprise a single publication are delivered as part of the same record. (3) With a small number of exceptions, data is not systematically stored/linked. | (1) Where files are copies of each other (e.g., a PDF and Word version) they will be delivered as part of the same record. (2) Multiple documents which comprise a single publication are delivered as part of the same record. (3) We can provide data storage but in practice low uptake. However 2015 will see a big drive on this particularly for EPSRC funded work. | Where files together make a single output these are stored and delivered as part of the same record; versions and related decuments stored separately with references between records provided | |||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Multiple file items | March 2015 | No change | No change | (1) and (2) No change. (3) The decision has been taken that EPrints will be used to systematically record all research datasets (even if storage takes place elsewhere). | Managed as part of same record i.e. dual format. Currenly no data management requirements | No change | EPrints records appear to be able to accommodate as many records as necessary | All files are retained in the record with description of version, file type etc. | Still working on, likely will add all files and versions to the same record | Articles comprising separate text and tables files required to be uploaded as a single document. Supplementary files or later versions of e.g. article can be archived in same eprint record. | |||||||||||||||||
42 | Multiple file items | September 2015 | No change | The one exception to the policy listed above is to keep research data and associated documentation together. | (1) and (2) No change. (3) A business case covering the use of EPrints as the primary system to record the existence of research datase is being prepared for formal approval. A new, separate instance of EPrints for datasets is being considered | Some modest increase in research data storage. | No change. | Articles comprising text and tables added separately to same record, functionality exists to link versions of a work as different metadata records but has not yet been explored | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
43 | Multiple file items | March 2016 | No change. We have been having discussions about how to catagorise materials which are both research data and another type of content, e.g., images, 3D objects, letters, etc. Having a main and sub-genre may help address this. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Version management | September 2014 | Limited version management is available but not widely used. However, self-deposits often come with multiple version in error and these staff as ghosts in the system even if older versions are deleted | (1) Metadata versioning is not carried out unless there is substantial change, with updates made as required (e.g., typos). (2) Content versioning is carried out behind the scenes by Fedora. We are exploring ways to make it easier to access previous versions. | (1) Metadata versioning is not carried out. Records are updated by repository staff. (2) All versions of content can be saved with the record | |||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Version management | March 2015 | No change | (1) No change. (2) No change (or progress as yet) | No change. | TBC - currently aspire to "Accepted version". Earlier versions are not systematically preserved. Anticipate potential issue with "gold" OA where accepted replaced by published version - expect to preserve accepted using EPrints functionality/vocab. | At the moment we ask for the final accepted manuscript, "Accepted Version" if Green; will have to bear in mind Gold requirements | We require deposit of the AAM | AAM as soon as possible for Green, replaced with published version for Gold. Some authors have asked not to have the publisher Gold version, but instead to point to the website in order to concentrate download statistics with the publisher. | AAM is mandated. Gold versions are uploaded when available. | AAM or published version (pre-prints are not accepted) | Different versions of full text to be in same eprint record, which reflects latest stage of publication. Versions earlier than 'accepted' are out of scope. Published versions may also be added when published (if can be made available). | ||||||||||||||||
46 | Version management | September 2015 | No change | No recent developments. | No change | We require deposit of the AAM, version management will be left to the depositor | No change | No change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
47 | Version management | March 2016 | No recent developments. | No change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Quality assurance | September 2014 | All items deposited currently go into a review area for staff editing and publication into the live repository. | All items deposited currently go into a QA queue for staff approval and publication into the live repository. | All items deposited currently go into a review area for staff editing and publication into the live repository. | All items deposited currently go into a review area for staff editing and publication into the live repository. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Quality assurance | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change. | All deposits go into EPrints review area and processed by repository admin based in the Library | Everything is reviewed by repository staff prior to publication on EPrints (metadata, policies, embargoes...) | All items deposited currently go into a review area for staff editing and publication into the live repository. | Everything is reviewed by repository staff | All items are reviewed by Scholarly Publications Team. | Metadata and document versions are reviewed by repository staff, more complex quality monitoring involves research institute representatives | Metadata and full text reviewed by repository staff: metadata accuracy, authors linked to unique ID, publisher policies, embargoes. In-press items receive second check to update status and set embargoes. Flags and codes used to enable repository staff to identify records needing further checks. | ||||||||||||||||
50 | Quality assurance | September 2015 | No change | Management of the QA queue has proved burdensome with the amount if material deposited. Adaptation and use of colour-coded folders is addressing this. | No change | Additional quality checks attempted but little actually done due to limited resources. We are using the reports we have built on EPrints and hope to apply more resource to this soon. | No change | No change | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||
51 | Quality assurance | March 2016 | Further refinement of QA process has eased the workload, by splitting the task in to different stages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | Text mining enabled? | September 2014 | All PDFs are text files rather than images, but no specific efforts are made to enable text-mining as yet | The vast majority of PDFs are text files rather than images, but no specific efforts are made to enable text-mining as yet. The licensing implications of text-mining have not been explored. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Text mining enabled? | March 2015 | No change | No change. | The vast majority of PDFs are text files rather than images, but no specific efforts are made to enable text-mining as yet. The licensing implications of text-mining have not been explored. | Not yet explored this | The vast majority of PDFs are text files rather than images, but no specific efforts are made to enable text-mining as yet. The licensing implications of text-mining have not been explored. | Not certain | We have not yet made any deliberate efforts to enable or maximise text mining. | Generally yes though some quality control is needed | Not addressed | |||||||||||||||||
54 | Text mining enabled? | September 2015 | No change | No change | No change | No change | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Text mining enabled? | March 2016 | No change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Other | September 2014 | None | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Other | March 2015 | None | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Other | September 2015 | Shared mailboxes are being used, one for enquiries and one for mediated deposits. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Other | March 2016 | Concerns raised about some templates and desire to improve these. Requirements being addressed with IT for implementation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Gold/green environment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Gold or green? | September 2014 | A new open access policy is being tabled at University Research Committee this autumn. If accepted it will favour a green and gold approach depending on funder and budget available | Institutionally, Hull is agnostic on gold or green, and leaves this to the academic. | In its institutional Open Access Publications Policy, Lincoln states a preference for green but allows gold. The decision is left to the academic. | Green is our 'policy'route. Gold only where neceessary and funding provided by funders. We advise authors which route to take. We generally tell them we will pay if it must be gold so more an institutional than author decision. | No policy in 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Gold or green? | March 2015 | Policy has been approved at University SMT | No change in principle, although University policy is defaulting to Green as baseline compliance. | No change. | TBC - green is policy route. Central APC fund being implemented. | Green is the preferred route in our policy, however Gold (funded by COAF etc.) is available to academics on application to ProVC Research; some schools here have unilaterally paid out Gold APCs to publishers but we are still trying to determine extent of this | Preference is for Green Route | New policy for 2015 does not specify a preference, but there will be an institutional fund to support Gold route to compliance | Green is mandated. Gold is available if funder requirement or if publication via Gold is likely to lead to enhanced impact/citation (this is a departmental/UoA decision - some have lists of "high impact" journals; others have an internal review process to allocate this additional Gold funding). | Green, there is no institutional funding for Gold | Green by default to comply with University and HEFCE OA polices. And then Gold where funding available. | ||||||||||||||||
63 | Gold or green? | September 2015 | We are working to embed this policy in the University. We are also adherring to the policy regardless of changes to HEFCE policy | We have focused on implementation of the University policy. We are adhering to this irrespective of the HEFCE relaxation on date of acceptance. | No change. We are adhering to the institutional policy irrespective of the HEFCE relaxation on date of acceptance. | No Change | No change | No Change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
64 | Gold or green? | March 2016 | No change. | No change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | Gold workflow(s) (incl. payment) | September 2014 | Workflows are being developed. Researchers are encouraged to contact the Information Resources Manager to arrange central payment as the Library holds RCUK funds and a central budget. The Business School has a separate gold OA policy, which is also administered by the library. | We offer three gold open access routes currently: RCUK, Sage and PeerJ (the latter two being deposit accounts). (1) RCUK applications are placed through an online form that goes to a shared mailbox (openaccess@hull) for processing in liaison with the academic. APC payments are managed through a spreadsheet. (2) Sage applications are through an online form as well, and processed by library staff. (3) PeerJ applications are through the PeerJ website, which alerts authors that Hull has a membership with them. (4) We know that academics individually pay for Gold OA themselves, but there is not central record of this currently. | (1) Workflows are being developed and vary between the three colleges. Academics are encouraged to contact repository staff for advice. The Library holds a fund for APCs. We offer three gold open access routes currently: RCUK, Sage and PeerJ (the latter two being deposit accounts). (2) Block-fund and library fund applications are placed via email to a shared mailbox (eprints@lincoln.ac.uk) for processing in liaison with the academic. APC payments are managed through a spreadsheet. (3) We know that academics individually pay for Gold OA themselves, but there is not central record of this currently. | One standard workflow as far as author concerned - email our openaccess box. We then decide on gold/green/other and action accordingly. Gold - serials team deal with finances sometimes invoices, sometimes pre-pay, green - respository team ensure relevant info on repository. Further work required as this is quite inefficient particularly laising with publishers and delays in getting finance costs to our finance system. Hoping some of the Pathfinders/Jisc initiatives will help identify ways to smooth out some of the obstacles. However - it is much loved by our authors as we minimise any burden on them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Gold workflow(s) (incl. payment) | March 2015 | Workflows have now been transferred to a member of the repository Team and are monitored by the Information Resources Manager and Research Librarian | No change | No change. | TBC - Symplectic exploring integration of workflow to Elements. Where funder supports APC should build into bid; where no funding available advice to target green journal but option to apply for APC if gold only journal is preferred publication route. | We are still in early stages of establishing an institution wide procedure. Some Gold funding available through COAF etc. but only on application to ProVC Research; no formalised central Gold APC budget operating; some schools have dealt with publishers unilaterally prior to this academic year. | Researchers contact openaccess@sussex.ac.uk as early as possible in the process with the details of the paper (ideally title/journal/date of acceptance/funder/project name). We will then confirm eligibility for using the fund and contact Head of School for authorisation to make the payment for Gold OA. | Workflow is managed between Library support staff and Finance. The steps are long and complex, and are being looked at as part of a Jisc project with GW4. | Researchers contact openaccess@northumbria.ac.uk and Scholarly Publications Team manage payment (i.e. raise invoices) | None | Only central funding is for RCUK research. First come first served basis via Research & Enterprise Development. Authors complete application in request database. Eligibility for article and author checked. Discussions underway regarding an APC fund for non-RCUK funded research. | ||||||||||||||||
67 | Gold workflow(s) (incl. payment) | September 2015 | We are working to formalise this procedure - a workflow is being created as well as instructions to research centres. In addition, other Schools are considering funding Gold OA, Art, Design and Architecture are piloting this | No change | No change | No change | No change | None | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
68 | Gold workflow(s) (incl. payment) | March 2016 | No change to previous activity. Only additional area is the Jisc Springer deal, which has led to a number of papers published through Springer being made available on open access | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Green workflow(s) | September 2014 | Green OA is managed by the individual researcher and the library. Where metadata only is deposited, the library follows up with a request for green OA. The library also receives green OA deposits from RJB/Publications Router | Green OA is managed through direct request to the library via a shared mailbox (repository@hull) and manual addition by library staff. There has been interest expressed in the use of Researchgate/Academia.edu as a means of Green OA. Current advice is to make use of them as useful, but also deposit a copy in the repository. | Green OA is managed through direct deposit by author, or manual addition by library staff. Current advice is to make use of other databases as useful, but use the repository as primary. | Green OA is managed through same workflow as gold - author notifies us of acceptance and if we decide it is green we ask for author final version if necessary. We pass this to our repository team to check and update the repository. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Green workflow(s) | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change. | Historically deposit has been heavily mediated with staff sending files to repository admin. As we move towards 2016 staff will be encouraged/required to add acceptance metadata and upload AAM from their Elements account. EPrints review will be managed from the Library. | Author records date of acceptance, metadata on Sympectic Elements, and if possible uploads file; Repository staff check the deposit and then makes it live on EPrints; Repository staff liaises with academic to get appropriate version, notify of embargo, confirm deposit, if necessary. | Green OA is managed through direct deposit by author, or manual addition by library staff. | Same as Sussex - Green OA is managed through direct deposit by author, or manual addition by library staff. | Self-deposit is encouraged, but it is possible for academic staff (or their representatives in faculty administration) to send lists or links to online CVs etc. so the Scholarly Publications Team can add records on their behalf. | Fully mediated deposit although relies on authors to inform staff of publication (via e-mail) | Author deposits article in repository as soon as accepted for publication. Plans in place to chase non receipt of accepted version. | ||||||||||||||||
71 | Green workflow(s) | September 2015 | No change | No change. We have been encountering a bewildering array of what might be considered an author's accepted manuscript. | In addition to the existing process on deposit, 'clean' PDF files are now sometimes generated by the author with the assistance of the repository team - acknowledging that an AAM may never be forthcoming, but subject to time constraints | No change. From Jan 2016 records without an AAM will be rejected and returned to the author | No change | No change | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
72 | Green workflow(s) | March 2016 | No change, although we are finding ourselves contacting publishers far more as we encounter different practices. Making good use of UKCORR-DISCUSSION list to identify issues and share experiences. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Publisher liaison | September 2014 | The Repository team liaise with publishers on behalf of the researchers | Liaison with publishers is mainly left to the academics, although library staff have made contact where specific issues/queries have arisen. | Liaison with publishers is mainly left to the academics, although library staff have made contact where specific issues/queries have arisen (with little success). | Usually repository staff liaise with publisher where publisher archiving/open access policy not discoverable. Library liaises with Jisc and publishers re APC deals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Publisher liaison | March 2015 | No change | No change. We anticipate library staff getting more involved in this over the course of this year. | The amount of direct publisher liaison by the library, and the amount of advice given by the library to academic staff on publisher liasion, have both increased. | The Repository team liaise with publishers on behalf of the researchers | Think we would prefer academics to liaise but we have already had to make contact to establish correct Green OA policies | The Research Support Team liaise with publishers on behalf of researchers | Research Support try to encourage authors to take up issues with publishers, but will often intervene if the case is complex | The Scholarly Publications Team will contact publishers on the author's behalf. | Done by repository staff | No change | ||||||||||||||||
75 | Publisher liaison | September 2015 | No change | No change. However, with a new Research Services Team in place since July (following a local re-organisation), we have more dedicated staff resource to follow up on this. | The amount of direct publisher liaison by the library, and the amount of advice given by the library to academic staff on publisher liasion, have both increased. | Liaison with publishers is with authors and library - we liaise on copyright, billing issues etc | No change | No change | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||
76 | Publisher liaison | March 2016 | As above, we are getting more involved in liaising with publishers on what can be deposited, although continuing to ask academics to engage in the process where they can. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Reporting | September 2014 | RCUK reporting is done by the library. At present there are no other internal systems, although the library also keeps track of other gold OA payments | Gold OA reporting is via records on usage from the publishers (Sage and PeerJ) and our own spreadsheet records (RCUK). Green OA reporting is currently ad hoc via Google Analytics and requires attention. | (1) RCUK reporting is through the spreadsheet for monitoring payments. Other gold relies on authors reporting to repository staff, which they don’t usually do. (2) We are working on a process for better identifying funders via the Worktribe AMS. | See earlier recording. Actual costs extracted by me from finance system, some checks for committments not yet on finance system against our spreadsheet/serials system, compliance info from repository. Re point in column E there may be some gold going through a few other accounts and not labelled gold so cannot be found but this is reducing and is same issue as if you ask how much did GU spend on testtubes - if not coded right cannot find. Messy and time consuming and hope our EPrints work will resolve some of this though some is process and therefore other solutions required. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Reporting | March 2015 | We are currently doing a manual HEFCE compliance check and will report this to various University committees | No change | (1) No change. (2) No change or progress. | RCUK funding virtually nil! Auditing for HEFCE TBC - combination of data via Elements API and EPrints. Symplectic also exploring this area. | RCUK reporting done by ProVC currently, based on applications for Gold APC (see above); | RCUK reporting is done by the library in consultation with Research Finance. At present there are no other internal systems, although the library also keeps track of other gold OA payments | Reports mainly ad hoc for internal purposes, using data from Finance. Also standard reports for RCUK. Lots of the data and compliance information has to be prepared manually. | RCUK reporting is manual managed by Library. | Useage is monitored, looking to monitor compliance | RCUK reporting done by Library. HEFCE reporting tbd.; Library is drafting process. | ||||||||||||||||
79 | Reporting | September 2015 | Manual HEFCE check still in place. We use the Jisc APC template for RCUK reporting | Little development, currently guided by RCUK reporting and use of Jisc APC template. | No change | Big improvement now that data is in EPrints and reports have been tested | No change | No change | No change | No change | ||||||||||||||||||
80 | Reporting | March 2016 | No change, although looking at Jisc Monitor reporting options as one possible way to provide this better. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | Other | September 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Other | March 2015 | Research Office and Library did a manual follow-up after Researchfish return to mop up any recent/forthcoming publications and ensure Gold OA where possible - time consuming and not feasible on a large scale | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | Other | September 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | Other | March 2016 | Academics getting more interested in finding a more structured way of exploiting gold open access. Options are being explored for a business case for local instittuional support. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Metadata environment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Metadata collected | September 2014 | Dublin Core | All Hydra records have MODS metadata as default. However, DC fields have been used as the basis for templates, which are then expanded as required. | Dublin Core | |||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Metadata collected | March 2015 | No change | No change | No change. | Dublin Core (Date of Acceptance captured in Elements but not yet EPrints) | Think it's Dublin Core, metadata is exchanged between Elements and EPrints with varying success therefore manual intervention often required by Research Support Librarian | Dublin Core | Validated Dublin Core with some additional elements | Dublin Core | ||||||||||||||||||
88 | Metadata collected | September 2015 | No change | No change. We are developing a RIOXX template based on a mapping from MODS. | No change | No Change | No Change | |||||||||||||||||||||
89 | Metadata collected | March 2016 | No change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | Source(s) of metadata | September 2014 | Manual entry, DOI | Manual entry | Manual entry, BibTeX, DOI or PubMedID import | |||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | Source(s) of metadata | March 2015 | No change | No change, although the REF batch ingest highlighted options for en masse collection as well | No change. | Manual entry (acceptance), augmented where available via Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed etc (auto importa via Elements) | Elements data enhanced by manual intervention by Librarian | Manual, or exported from Scopus or other EPrints systems as necessary | Can be manual, or via DOI, or by import from Web of Science | Manual or DOI import from Web of Science and Scopus. | Manual or DOI | Mostly author manual deposit or DOI. Router. | ||||||||||||||||
92 | Source(s) of metadata | September 2015 | No change | Manual entry | No change | No change | No Change | Increasingly manual, DOI's not available for work on acceptance | No change | |||||||||||||||||||
93 | Source(s) of metadata | March 2016 | Manual entry. Interested in Jisc services for populating records and CrossRef developments for assigning DOIs on acceptance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | Additional metadata required | September 2014 | RIOXX is being tracked and will be implemented once confirmed. It is not yet clear what metadata it will be useful to capture for research data. | RIOXX is being tracked and will be implemented once confirmed. It is not yet clear what metadata it will be useful to capture for research data. | Working on comprehensive spec including REF, RCUK and instititional requirements. Spreadsheet being amended via CASRAI. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets. P/d/1ViOQj5Cj9mlkFCTjCMjtAA6pELEM9s_82IGfSJF5lv0/edit#gid=362022712 Probably worth the sites to the left contacting Anna Clements re the RDM metadata profile and what CASRAI RDM group might do on taking this forward. We produced one a while ago for EPrints but keen to standardise | Date of Acceptance, ultimately full RIOXX | ||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | Additional metadata required | March 2015 | RIOXX will be implemented when Eprints upgrade is in place | No change, other than noting that RIOXX is now officially released. | Some data elements from RIOXX have been hard-coded into EPrints itself; they will be reconciled with RIOXX when it is installed after EPrints is audited. | RIOXX being discussed with EPrints team, but the full potential of our systems in this areas are still being explored | RIOXX to be implemented shortly | RIOXX being looked at. | RIOXX upgrade awaited. | Waiting for RIOXX | RIOXX installed | |||||||||||||||||
96 | Additional metadata required | September 2015 | RIOXX implemented, still requires tweaks | See above re: RIOXX update | No change | None really as we now have the REF plugin and our other OA tab live. | RIOXX currently being implemented | RIOXX in place. | dc.date.acceptance, dc.eprint to be added | Accepted date field to be added | ||||||||||||||||||
97 | Additional metadata required | March 2016 | No change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | Other | September 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | Other | March 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | Other | September 2015 | Funded project plugin installed (EPrints). Mandatory completion by depositor |