Open Access and National Adoption Scholarly Outputs in Public Health NECOBELAC in association with Irish Institute of Public Health Dublin, 9 th May 2012 Bill Hubbard Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham

National adoption Models from elsewhere Netherlands –Cream of Science –National coverage USA –independent UK –relatively successful

UK examples SHERPA - self-help group SHERPA Plus - self-help and workshop support RSP - centralised support, workshops, consultancy DRIVER - advocacy for IRs, European standards, political confederation UKCoRR - repository manager peer group and professional body Now virtual coverage of the UK research base

Lessons learnt overview For Open Access to work, need Permissive legal situation Technical capabilities & systems Functioning national network of repositories National network of OA activists Buy-in from stakeholders on OA

Legal Environment Permission to archive –work with publishers and advisory services Direction to archive –work with funders, institutions and governments Stakeholders - particularly authors - need clarity, reassurance and service-level assistance

Technical capabilities Not a technical problem - within current capabilities To put together a repository, need a techie with web service and LAMP stack skills - or buy it in!

Functioning network of repositories

National network of OA activists Identify agents of change Identify early adopters, local champions –critically analyse any record of success Support them with information and links Help them identify local quick wins and political targets Give them advice and information about benefits and cost/benefit cases

Provide training and support Materials are available –See NECOBELAC, SHERPA, RSP websites Services are available –See RoMEO, JULIET, DRIVER Recognise that peer-to-peer support has value: OA is an intensively collaborative exercise

Create peer-to-peer and self-help groups Example of SHERPA Example of UKCoRR Example of DRIVER What examples exist within Irish healthcare for other change initiatives?

Top-down support - Funding Bodies Recognition of value of OA to mission of funders Policies/ mandates to ensure OA and/or deposition Recognition/reward of compliance from authors –and sanctions for non-compliance from authors –work with repository managers Promotion of OA work to their stakeholders (government, general public, researchers, institutions, learned societies)

Side-to-side support Networking amongst peers – , events, wikis, blogs Professional training –advocacy, technical issues, legal issues Share best practice, standards Self-help - create: –mentoring arrangements –peer-networks –professional support groups - eg, UKCoRR

Bottom-up support - local activists Support repositories Create effective policies for/about repository use Advocacy to researchers, authors and library staff Tackle practical problems Identifying work-flows and structures within institutions to support OA deposit Act as institutional focus to drive repository agenda

Buy-in from stakeholders on OA

Who are the stakeholders? Academic authors Academic researchers Medical practitioners, patients, learned societies, general public Librarians and information professionals Senior institutional administrators Funding agencies Publishers

First - general stakeholder awareness Available materials for all stakeholders showing: Idea and advantages of Open Access to research Different forms of Open Access –repositories, publishing Different uses of Open Access repositories and publishing systems Support material for FAQs and initial concerns and initial enthusiasms

Achieve buy in from stakeholders Demonstrate benefits Integrate with existing workflows Integrate with existing structures Analyse incentives for each stakeholder group and answer Identify structural blocks to OA adoption Recognise vested interests and respond

Questions? Bill Hubbard Head of Centre for Research Communications