1. Changing Organisational Culture: Mandates and other STORREys JISC Repositories Support Project Winter School 25 th -27 th Feb 2009, New Lanark Michael White [Joint Repository Manager] Information Services, University of Stirling michael.white@stir.ac.uk

2. Overview Presentation –Why Mandate? –Some external drivers: OATS Declaration; Funder Mandates; REF –Stirling’s Repository Project & STORRE –Stirling’s eTheses Mandate –Stirling’s ePrint Mandate Policy Workflow Advocacy Implementation & Monitoring –Are the Stirling Mandates working? –Conclusions Breakout groups Feedback from groups and discussion

3. Why Mandate? Mandate: –A policy that requires research outputs to be made available in an Open Access Repository Institutional Mandates –To get full coverage of Institutions research output in IR “If you build it they will come” –15% spontaneous deposits Mandate can increase pace of change in Organisational Culture –Fulfilling OATS declaration obligations –Facilitate compliance with Funder Mandates –Research Excellence Framework (REF) Funder Mandates –“Ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable” RCUK position statement on access to research outputs (2005)

4. Scottish Declaration on Open Access The Scottish Declaration on Open Access Event –Organised by “Scottish Library Community”, October 2004 –Attended by representatives from Scottish Universities, Research Funders, SHEFC, Scottish Executive ‘We believe that the interests of Scotland will be best served by the rapid adoption of open access to scientific and research literature.’ Stirling is a signatory, therefore committed to (“as and when possible”): –Set up institutional (or joint) repository –Encourage, and where practical mandate, the deposit of PhD theses –Encourage, and where practical mandate, researchers to deposit copies of their research outputs –Review intellectual property policies, to ensure that researchers have the right and duty to provide open access

5. Funder Mandates A number of funding bodies now have OA policies that require research papers to be made freely available –Condition of grant –OA Repository or OA Journal/Paid OA option Repository: –Institutional Repository –Central Repository E.g. UK PubMed Central (Wellcome and other medical funding bodies) OA Journal/Paid OA Option: –Some funders will provide funds for OA charges (Conflicting) Publisher policies obviously have an impact –Paid OA may be only option –May not be able to comply with Funder Policy at all! SHERPA JULIET provides summary of OA Policies (45 research funders) –http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/

6. The Research Excellence Framework Single unified framework for the assessment and funding of research across all subjects –Replacement for RAE Will combine quantitative indicators (metrics) and expert review processes The extent to which research is cited provides some indication of the impact or influence it has on subsequent research –Citation metrics can be used to produce proxy indicators of the impact/quality of published research OA has been shown to increase research impact and citations –Lawrence, S. (2001), Hajjem, C et al (2005), Eysenbach, G. (2006) Lag time means that items need to be OA now!

7. The Stirling Repository Project Started 2001 –To investigate the feasibility and costs of setting up a local Digital Repository service in order to: promote University of Stirling research make this research more widely available preserve this research Project Team –Director, 2 co-Project Managers, policy/workflow, technical, advocacy, metadata, copyright Expert Advisory Group –Small group of friendly academics –Representative from Research Office Started with eTheses, moved on to “ePrints” STORRE: Stirling Online Research Repository http://storre.stir.ac.uk/

8. STORRE Technical Stuff DSpace v1.4.1 Authentication integrated with Active Directory –Logon with local credentials –Automatic allocation to appropriate deposit groups Embargo period feature added –Allows us to set an Open Access delay (Closed Access) Request a Copy feature added –Enables users to request a copy of an article in Closed Access Workflow Visibility feature added –Enables us to make input fields only visible during Workflow

9. The eTheses Mandate eTheses Mandate introduced in Sept 2006 –PGRO and VP for Research very supportive –Regulations, handbooks and submission paperwork updated Students submit one paper and one electronic copy –Applies to all submitting students from Sept 2006 Electronic submission integrated with traditional submission processes –Can’t submit paper copy until eTheses accepted –Can specify embargo period if publishing Workflow –Verify submission with Registry staff –Check metadata, add LCSH and catalogue eTheses metadata based on EThOS project recommendations –Signed up for the EThOS service

10. The ePrint Mandate In (early) 2007 Member of original EAG became VP for Research –High level support for ePrint project –Pushed mandate through committees & Academic Council (Main) driver was REF and increased emphasis on metrics –Liaised directly with HoDs Circulated papers/proposals Helped identify volunteers for pilot study Launched competition to name the Repository Institutional Repository Working Group (Sept 2007) –VP Research, Research Office, EAG, IS Director, Project Director/Managers Mandate passed in March 2008: It is our policy to: –maximise the visibility, citation, usage and impact of our research output by maximising online access to it for all would-be users and researchers worldwide. –minimise the effort that each of us has to expend in order to provide open online access to our research output

11. The Policy Immediate Deposit/Optional Access Model –From Sept 2008 researchers will be required to submit their research publications to STORRE immediately upon acceptance for publication Back dated to Jan 2007 –Open Access where permitted –Closed Access for required embargo period Request a copy Require author’s final accepted draft (“Postprint”) –PDF format –Contact author if different version required Policy covers: –Submission Policy (depositing: who & what, quality & copyright) –Compliance with Publisher and Funder Policies –Preservation Policy –(Robust) Take-Down Policy Full Policy: –http://www.is.stir.ac.uk/research/repository/eprint-policy.php

12. Workflow Publisher Policy Checking via Romeo (LES Staff) –Version checking –Embargo checking/implementation –Publisher required statements Funder policy checking via Juliet (LES Staff) –If central deposit required: Check central repository to see if it’s there Notify author of responsibility to submit (and offer to do it for them) –So far only engaged with ESRC, TLRP, and Cancer Research UK Add (& check) metadata (BibS Staff) –Author name authority (Stirling authors) –DOIs –LCSH –Split citation Estimating 30 mins per paper –c730 papers per year –56 days (FTE) per year But more effort required up front –Will be monitored/reviewed...

13. Advocacy High level advocacy from VP Research –Research (and other) committees –HoDs, Dept. Research Coordinators Presentations to Departmental Research Committees –Questions about your research –Research usage statistics –UK HE Context –Finding items [Google (Scholar), OAIster etc] –Submission process –Publisher conditions –Benefits –REF!! Working closely with specific departments; e.g. –Economics: Automatic inclusion of WPs in RePEC –Computing Science: Conference Papers/Technical Reports Training for Departmental Research Administrators Other –Internal Publications, Leaflets/Handouts, Email/web pages, Statistics (growth, usage, content distribution)

14. Implementation Departments responsible for ensuring compliance –1 STORRE rep in each department (Research Director) –Regular reports from STORRE Managers to Research Committee Submission by academics or delegated individuals –“Minimise the effort” for individual researchers/submitters Network credentials, auto access to appropriate collections, minimum metadata... IS staff worry about publisher policies, embargoes, funder mandates etc 6 monthly “deadlines” proposed –Library considering providing lists from Web of Science as “minimum submission” indicator Currently only Journal Articles mandated –But Mandate resulted in (immediate) expansion into Working Papers, Conference Papers, Book Chapters, (Technical Reports)...

15. Is it working? Definitely had an effect! Plus c120 in Workflow!

16. Monthly Growth Rate March 2008: Policy announced Sept 2008: Policy comes into force Jan 2009: Reminder of 1 st “deadline”

17. Advocacy plays a vital role...

18. Conclusions Wide scale deposit in IRs requires cultural change –Depositing post prints in IR is not generally part of current working practices Mandates are a way to force the pace of cultural change in an organisation –Advocacy helps but not enough to achieve 100% OA quickly Adoption and implementation of a Mandate requires high level support –The REF is a major driver for Senior Managers –Competitive (dis)advantage A Mandate alone is not enough –Persistent and targeted advocacy –Monitoring and chasing up Keep it as simple as possible for authors –Simple instructions and processes –Complexity handled by Repository staff –Facilitate delegation of submission

19. Thanks for listening... Any questions?

20. Breakout Discussions Some possible questions to consider: –Is a Mandate the way forward for your institution? –What are the barriers for the adoption of a Mandate at your institution? What can be done to overcome them? –How might you go about getting a Mandate adopted at your Institution? –What are the characteristics of a successful Mandate? –What other approaches might you undertake alongside a Mandate in order to get compliance? –How might compliance be monitored and enforced/rewarded? –What are the implications of Funder Mandates for our IRs? And what role do we have in supporting compliance with Funder Mandates?