Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Advocacy and policy issues : advanced session Open Scholarship 2006 The University of Glasgow 18-20 October Joanne Yeomans CERN Scientific Information.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Advocacy and policy issues : advanced session Open Scholarship 2006 The University of Glasgow 18-20 October Joanne Yeomans CERN Scientific Information."— Presentation transcript:

1 Advocacy and policy issues : advanced session Open Scholarship 2006 The University of Glasgow October Joanne Yeomans CERN Scientific Information Service This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License

2 Tutorial outline Introduction Presentation on CERNs experience Breakout to groups Brainstorm thoughts/ideas Coffee Finalise discussion (5-10 minutes) Present results of discussion (5 minutes each group) General discussion

3 Advocacy definition active support of an idea or cause etc.; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something (Princeton WordNet) Advocacy starts with arguing for the benefits of having and using a repository, but what happens when everyone has heard the message?

4 Repeat the message Change the message Add to the message – use new arguments Find a new audience Act yourself Many of you already know the main advocacy arguments so lets also focus on the action you can take REPOSITORY When everyone has heard the message

5 CERN Background Mandate for approximately 50 years, electronic web repository since 1993 Electronic repository was started around the time of arXiv (general physics repository) Theorists communicate via arXiv and prefer to deposit there Experimentalists generally publish via departmental committee and must submit to CDS to get a CERN publication number Estimate around 40% author submission (to CDS) Overall collect around 70% of papers Many others (especially conference papers and computing authors) are lost at the moment

6 Identify the problem Find what is missing (problem 1) Many authors prefer to use arXiv Some groups prefer to use their own system to display bibliographies on the web Many conference papers are missing - Some authors submit very similar papers to different conferences, is this a big problem? Some (usually new) authors just dont know what theyre supposed to do

7 Tackle the problems 1 How to find what is missing? Solutions: –Use databases to search by affiliation and compare to holdings –Check if departments keep their own record of publications (then set up an automatic harvest/download) –Analyse the holdings to try to identify patterns Particular authors or related authors, eg in the same group Types of document Time periods Particular journals or publishers

8 Tackle the problems 2 Many authors prefer to use arXiv Some groups prefer to use their own system to display on the web Solutions: –Harvest from arXiv –Harvest from web pages –Talk to the researchers about why they prefer to do it like that

9 Tackle the problems 3 Some groups prefer to use their own system to display on the web Solutions: –Offer to get web pages in the style they want produced automatically from the repository and show them how simple it becomes then to update the list –Offer to do this for individuals –Ask them to talk to their colleagues and ask if anyone else is interested in this service

10 Tackle the problems 4 Many conference papers are missing - Some authors submit very similar papers to different conferences Solutions: –If they really dont want to make them public, mark the records so it is possible to discount them if necessary when producing statistics! –Mail authors on return from conferences to ask for paper (this works at CERN because we have a central travel request database) –Offer to suppress the full-text file totally or for viewing only on-site

11 Tackle the problems 5 Some (usually new) authors just dont know what theyre supposed to do Solutions: –Speak at staff induction session –Write periodic reminders in the staff bulletin –Ask to speak at group meetings –Use personal contacts to offer to demonstrate the system –Make general publicity for OA and the repository

12 Other things we do Write to publishers to ask for permission to download published versions –Worked for APS, AIP Search Google Scholar for free versions of papers published in commonly missed journals –Worked well for IEEE

13 Other things we do Consider cancellations of journals from publishers with not so good attitudes to OA or repositories –write to them or invite them to discuss this with you and explain your reasons and what you would like them to do Apply for research grants, or free students to work on identified projects –We keep a list of different jobs that need doing at different levels and have all sorts of people: children of staff come for 1 week work experience, PhD students for three years, Library Masters students working on projects

14 Why are you doing this? No-one has the answers yet Involve the authors as much as possible in as many activities as possible Try to find people who will advocate on your behalf – they are your friends! Its an exciting area to work on Not many librarians have the chance to work at the cutting edge YOU can make a mark!

15 Brainstorm All ideas have equal merit Start with quantity and then refine the quality Does anyone have experience to share? But please dont just use the most experienced person in your group to answer all your questions – they are also here to learn To get fresh ideas, reframe the problem: –Consider it from a different perspective (director, department head, researcher, etc) –Consider the opposite of what you want to achieve – this can help to focus on why you want to do the thing (eg if you want to look at why a mandate is necessary, ask what happens if there is no mandate)

16 Brainstorm practicalities Two questions to consider If someone in the group has a particular problem theyd like to discuss, use 10 minutes to focus on this Use the flip-chart sheets to make notes 5 mins each presentation after coffee Well stick the sheets onto the wall for everyone to look at after the session Well write an overview of these discussions to put on the conference website later

17 Feedback Notes taken and written up by Susanna Mornati CILEA, Project Leader AEPIC

18 Questions B1 A repository manager or advocate needs a variety of skills and know-how. Where could you find people with the skills or knowledge that you are lacking and how can you get them to become alliance partners? Survey of skills available within the same institution, e.g. computing, marketing (there is no unique profile) Students can help with data entry, small projects for cash Consortium approach (more libraries / institutions / researchers together, at the regional or national level, through networks) Repository software user groups (expertise available) Targeting key academics - champions within and outside the institution

19 Questions B2 What incentives can you offer to people that will help increase content? Focus on add-on services not the filling of the repository Sell services to individuals and to the community Targeted marketing (individuals and wider audience) Promoting the increase of access Long-term preservation issue (raising priority) Buy them a drink

20 Questions C1 How could you get people to use the repository as part of their workflow process rather than as a store for documents? Derivative uses: CV production and list of publications, use of content for learning materials, Current research register, publicity Feedback to administration: budget allocation, research evaluation Unique point of submission: build subject repositories by harvesting from IRs

21 Questions D1 How can you help authors to understand the complexities of funder mandates, how can you use them to your advantage, and what can you do for those funders who dont have a mandate? Publicize Juliet database ( on funders policies Many countries dont have funder mandates Alert other funders to existing mandates Alert authors to implications of mandates – in particular, tie in with copyright management and retention Advocate IRs and OA in general (raise awareness before mandating) Use the Research Support Unit

22 Questions D2 What are the implications as OA (and hybrid) journals become more popular? Existing confusion: either distance the two issues or discuss them together but make clear the distinction between OA journals and repositories Who pays for OA publishing? Will they come out of the money for repository funding Consider the repository as a bibliography tool and use harvesting and linking to OA journal articles

23 Questions E1 Can you identify potential easy sources of content and how could you go about getting that content? There are different levels of ease Easy content: full-text versus metadata Is harvesting easy? Why are none of use doing it? Need to address technical issues, resource/staff issues and legal questions E-theses have few legal problems but you might not necessarily want this content target disciplines according to their differences, eg economics and computing produce working papers and reports which might be easier

24 Questions E2 How can you use existing content to attract more content direct from the authors? Use content for demonstrators Build services on contents for researchers information eg CVs and bibliographies Use rankings to raise competition Link in to citations, funder mandates, policies

25 Questions F1 How does an institutional-level mandate make a difference? Becomes a must not a should Change researchers behaviour (make it a natural part of the publishing process to increase the speed of dissemination) Link to incentives eg financial (reward articles deposited) Mandate plus extra motivation: added value, incentives –reuse data for annual report, personal websites / bibliographies

26 Questions F2 Do you need a different policy for each research subject and are there different ways in which you can work with different departments? Share policies, customize workflows – policies can be the same, but practical workflow will vary by subject Differences in disciplines and material types: articles, books, working papers – royalties, copyright In the social sciences and humanities small publishers are often negative about Open Access Humanities authors might be won over by emphasizing the availability of their work to readers if its digitized

27 Discussion Also suggested during final discussion: Cross-institutional services: –Citations, available tools to build new knowledge

28 Other questions to think about What are the distinct themes or areas you need to work on to develop your repository? What basic advocacy activities need repeating and/or building upon and how? What is success and how can you measure it? How can you improve your relationship with publishers and how can you use repository power to influence them? Whose responsibility is it to populate the repository and what can you do to help them in their role? How can you identify whats missing from the repository? What items are more important to have in the repository than others? Who are the different stakeholders with an interest in the repository and how much do you know about them?

Download ppt "Advocacy and policy issues : advanced session Open Scholarship 2006 The University of Glasgow 18-20 October Joanne Yeomans CERN Scientific Information."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google