Workflows and key messages to enable
Open Research
Jackie Proven, Repository & Open Access Services Manager, jep10@st-andrews.ac.uk
Federica Fina, Data Scientist, ff23@st-andrews.ac.uk
Background
•
CRIS / repository infrastructure and services
• Increasing drivers for and acceptance of openness
• Growth of Digital Research division in the University Library
• Strategy to develop joined-up support for open research
•
Open Access team with established collaborative approach
• Jisc Open Access Good Practice LOCH Project (Lessons in Open Access
Compliance for Higher Education) and other Pathfinders
• ‘Mini pathfinder’ projects, LEAN review and actions
•
Research Data Management infrastructure and service
development – researcher-focussed single interface
Research data requirements
• Funders are: RCUK, EC (Horizon2020), the Royal Society, and others.
• Applies to published results
• Data Management Plan (DMP):
o how researchers intend to comply; what will be shared; where data will
be archived; agreements with collaborators • Publications:
o acknowledge funder (grant number) and include a statement on how to access supporting data (where? On which conditions?)
• Data:
o should be made publicly available
o should be retained - at least <10 years> from last date of access
• Costs:
Open Access requirements
• Publications:
o acknowledge funder (grant number)
o certain publication types need to be OA under certain rules
• Repository deposit:
o should be made publicly available (when?)
o should be the correct version and comply with copyright (how?)
• APC costs:
o centrally funded by some funders (which?)
o in some cases costs should be included in grant applications
• Funders include: RCUK, EC (Horizon2020), the Wellcome Trust, and others
• UK - Policy for the next REF: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/
Researchers’ questions
OA
• Why do I have to do this?...
• “Open Access is here: make sure you are ready!”
• When and how do I upload my article?
• When and how will my manuscript be made public?
• …Do I need to pay?
• …Does my publisher allow this?
• …etc./…
RDM
• Why do we have to do this?
• What data should I deposit?
• What formats should we use?
• How and when should I deposit the data?
• Where and when can I obtain a
DOI for my data?
• How do I link, in the CRIS, my data
RDM deposit and validation workflow I
Stage 1: pre-acceptance
• Datasets are created both by authors and RDM team
• We do not explicitly offer mediated deposit for datasets
• No support at school level
RDM team receive notification and check for duplicates
Coin DOI and notify authors Validation workflow
Dataset record created in Pure
Inactive DOI created
RDM deposit and validation workflow II
Stage 2: post-acceptance
• Use of filters in Pure to perform validation tasks
• Pure offers integration with DataCite to mint DOIs
Final Acceptance
Proofs submitted
e-Pub ahead of print
Publication
Final data files in Pure and record completed/updated
DOI activated, metadata made public
Data made public
Check and enhance metadata
Activate DOI – metadata made public
Validate record - files made public
Perform basic data quality control Validation workflow
OA deposit workflow
Act on acceptance
OA roles and validation workflow
Set embargo end date (write comments)
Validate record (with embargo)
OA team receive notification or check filters
Researcher deposit Mediated deposit
Metadata and files to repository
Check and enhance metadata, perform copyright checks and set default embargo
Identify and link data / funders / grants required?Gold OA
Additional roles in the workflow
Additional actions
Library advises authors on additional funder requirements Library advises on funding for immediate OA Follow-up and advice
Library contacts authors/office for additional information and/or correct versions Library validation
Library enhances metadata Library checks version, applies embargoes School office enters article in PURE
Create new metadata record Upload full text accepted manuscript Author notifies School office
Forward notification email Send accepted manuscript Article accepted by publisher
Author receives notification (Library may receive notification)
Link grants / data
Joint approach
• Delivering joint OA-RDM Pure tutorials:
o being able to address any questions related to OA and/or RDM
o giving a complete overview of the processes and overlaps
• Drop-in sessions in schools
o bringing the service to the researchers
• Cross-team communications
o RDM team reminds researchers to deposit the AAM if not in Pure at
dataset validation stage
o OA team remind researchers to deposit datasets if not in Pure at
article validation stage
• Shared posts between Library and Research Policy Office
Joint approach: pros & cons
Pros
• Addresses OA and/or RDM
questions in one forum
• Gives a complete overview of the
processes and highlights overlaps
• Efficient - bringing the service to
the researchers
• Raises awareness in researchers
• Increased knowledge and
experience across teams
• Workflow visualisation forces us to
structure and review our processes
• Shared workload for organising
Cons
• Some confusion for researchers
over which team to contact
• Funder requirements are
sometimes mixed up
• Can be resource intensive –
multiple staff at each event
Outcomes
• Current deposit rates by subject
• Early increase in pilot Schools
• Gradual increase in Arts &
Humanities 0 20 40 60 80 100
Jan-May2015 Jan15-Feb16 Jan15-May16 Jan-May2016
Biomedical sciences Physical sciences Social Sciences Arts and Humanities
• 171 dataset records in Pure
• 114 dataset records with files in St Andrews’ repository
• 20 datasets in progress
• 37 datasets deposited elsewhere but with metadata in Pure (catalogue)
Outcomes and challenges
Outcomes
• Deposit rate of both datasets and
articles is increasing
• Researchers appreciate the service
tailored to their needs
• Decentralising mediated deposit
allows the OA team to focus more on answering enquiries
• The joint approach brings the OA
and RDM teams closer and this allows to deliver a more COHESIVE service
Challenges
• Deposit for both datasets and
articles is not 100%
• Even if the joint communication
strategy has been intensified, the messages do not reach everyone
• Teams need to be invited by the
schools
• Some schools do not see the need
St Andrews research portal
2016 - 80% of articles deposited
2015 – 57% of
Thank you for listening
0000-0002-0702-0907 Jackie Proven jep10@st-andrews.ac.uk
0000-0003-2594-350X Federica Fina ff23@st-andrews.ac.uk
CC BY
https://www.flickr.com/photos/f-oxymoron/9647972522
• Researchers need a simple message and a process/workflow that they can
reference against existing ones
• Workflows must be flexible to be adapted to the needs of different
Schools/disciplines but also of individual researchers
• The workflows tasks can be distributed to school office administrators
employing the right knowledge and skills at the right place and time
