Lessons in OA Compliance for HE (LOCH) College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine Case study Anna Krzak Open Access Coordinator/Administrator, CMVM 1

College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) Research-intensive institution: approx. 33k research outputs recorded in PURE Recent REF 2014 placed our Vet School top in the UK; Medicine and Neuroscience at UoE were both top five* Medicine was the University of Edinburgh’s largest REF submission and one of the largest in the UK as defined by research power *I am not bragging at all - Just saying that there is an extra pressure to perform even better in the next REF… 2

Structure 2 Schools – Vet School and Medical School with 3 Deaneries 5 Research Institutes – each with more than 500 staff and postgraduates Many interdisciplinary Research Centres - including: 4 MRC Centres, BHF Centres, a CRUK Centre, an Asthma UK (A-UK) Centre, a BBSRC funded institute an and a WHO Collaborating Centre on Population Health Research and Training Division of Health Sciences with sub-units Multiple sites across Edinburgh 3

What would we like to achieve? Compliance with REF OA Policy – ensuring that CMVM research papers are eligible for the next REF Increased compliance with other funders' mandates, especially MRC, BBSRC and Wellcome Trust Increased awareness of OA and its benefits OA integrated into researcher's publishing practices 4

Challenges (some of them…) New point of intervention – date of acceptance Time constraints Research staff needs to engage with the policy requirements Confusing requirements (e.g. embargoes, etc.) A large number of papers is produced on a regular basis A complex structure of the College (multiple sites) - a big challenge in terms of ensuring that everyone is aware of the requirements - loads of advocacy and training! 5

6 ChallengePossible Solution Deposit on acceptance – How do we identify newly accepted articles? Example: Clear responsibilities: It’s the academic responsibility to send the correct files to local administrator – message repeated at OA meetings, research committee papers, etc. Multi-author papers – e.g. authors unaware of acceptance, difficulties in obtaining AAM from external authors Example: Advise authors to make their OA responsibilities clear to other co-authors No robust ‘evidence base’ against which we could benchmark our compliance – How do we know that we’ve managed to capture every paper in PURE? Example: Regular scanning of external databases, e.g. Scopus, Web of Science or Science Direct, etc. Not perfect – but we need to have a bigger picture and some sort of ‘safety net’

7 College OA Workflow College Research Office OA Coordinator Research Centre Administrator/s Centre admin staff (administrators, PAs, secretaries, lab managers etc.) are the local OA contacts for the deposit of accepted manuscripts. They also update and validate papers in Pure on publication.

8 Arrangements – (Locally) mediated deposit

9

Communications so far... kick-off meetings with the senior admin staff from each centre/unit visiting each centre/site and learning about the local working practices to ensure that the new workflows are fitted in seamlessly within the already existing processes from the Head of College to all staff OA updates as the standard item on the College Research Committee agenda monthly reminders sent by local administrators And more… every day! 10

11

OA Admin training sessions Open access-related terminology Benefits of Open Access – it’s not just about compliance Different versions of papers (with examples) Basic publication workflow Detailed overview of REF OA policy Other funders’ OA policies Implementation arrangements for CMVM Detailed instructions regarding PURE PLUS Endless follow-up training sessions (usually 1:1) (a huge demand for these!) 12

OA Academic talks work best if organised as part of regular PI meeting usually a minute presentation: – OA requirements – Date of Acceptance and the correct version to deposit – Centre’s OA procedure – Reminder about other OA policies – esp. MRC, BBSRC, Wellcome Trust and other charities PLUS Meetings with individual researchers, etc. 13

Lessons (already) learned critical path for the project communication and dialogue between all the stakeholders establishing support system - network of dedicated OA contacts 14

Author forwards the acceptance and the correct version of paper to local administrator On Acceptance Administrator creates a metadata record and uploads the correct version of paper into PURE ASAP Administrator adds post-publication metadata, sets correct embargo, links projects and validates the record Paper becomes OA either immediately or once embargo has expired On Publication 15

Lessons (already) learned detailing the roles and responsibilities of all key stakeholders Responsibility matrix: a.streamlines the organisational structure b.facilitates understanding and improves communication c.shows shared ownership of OA d.shows that each activity is supported and everyone knows who to contact for help 16

17

What else have we learnt? Communication is at the heart of OA so… communicate! Clear and simple message – both academics and admins need to know exactly what/when to do sth Clarify the REF/OA jargon Reinforce the positive message about OA… Report regularly - continuous improvement Never too late for advocacy! 18

And maybe the most important thing… Don’t forget what you are REALLY trying to achieve with all these procedures: OA embedded as the norm OA an integral part of good research practice Shared ownership of OA Permanent change to author’s publishing habits (changing mindsets) “Isn’t that just ‘science’?”* *Watson, M 2015, 'When will 'open science' become simply 'science'?' Genome Biology, vol 16, no. 1, pp. 101., /s

Outcomes Requests for admin training sessions Requests for short OA talks for academics Established network of OA contacts – better dialogue Mediated deposit but personalised approach OA workflows fitted in the local working practices Resolved academic/admin queries More OA awareness – admins/academics know to ask questions (!) More OA content in PURE and increasing compliance 20

21 Publication period Percentage of articles with full-text documents in PURE March - April - May63% June – July - August65% September – October - November 72% *KEY POINTS TO NOTE: This is NOT a REF compliance report but it may indicate potential compliance Reported research outputs types: articles, editorials, letters, scientific reviews and conference contributions which were entered in PURE. Have we captured every paper that was published within this reporting period? Progress to date

What’s next? Further streamlining of our processes Regular and more accurate reporting Monitoring and data quality control More OA advocacy – especially for ECRs 22

Thank you for listening! 23