1. Uncovering researcher behaviours and engagement with Open Access #oagp
20 May 2015

2. Uncovering researcher behaviours and engagement with Open Access #oagp
Welcome Professor Alistair Fitt, Vice Chancellor, Oxford Brookes University

3. Sarah Fahmy, OA Good Practice Manager
Jisc OA Good Practice
Sarah Fahmy, OA Good Practice Manager

4. Supporting OA is a priority for Jisc
Challenges
Absolute costs
Administrative costs
Interoperability between systems
Low awareness
Policy confusion
International dimension
Jisc OA Offer
Jisc Collections Off-setting negotiations/
Total Cost of ownership
RIOXX, Monitor, Publications Router
OA Good Practice
PASTEUR4OA, OPENAIRE
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

5. Open Access services Publication Use Sherpa RoMEO Sherpa FACT
Submission
Select journal
Check compliance
Acceptance
Pay APC
Deposit in repository
Open Access services
Sherpa RoMEO
Sherpa FACT
Jisc Collections
Jisc Publications Router
Jisc OA Monitor
Publication
Report on compliance
Maximise impact
Use
Record impact
Report
Jisc OA Monitor
CORE
OA Good Practice
Jisc Collections helpdesk
Repository technical support
IRUS-UK
RIOXX
SINGLE COLUMN – FOR EITHER BODY COPY, BULLETS, GRAPHICS, IMAGES, TABLES OR VIDEO – PLEASE NOTE ANY VIDEOS SUPPLIED WILL NEED THE VIDEO SUPPLIED ALONG SIDE THE PRESENTATION
+++++ PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DELETE THESE NOTES WHILST CREATING YOUR PRESENTATION
10/11/2018
Jisc Digital Festival, 9-10 March 2015, ICC Birmingham

6. Support for HEIs Pathfinder projects
OA Good Practice aims to develop shareable examples of good practice, so that a range of approaches can be collaboratively developed and commonly applied according to the individual needs of the HEI.
Pathfinder projects
OA Community development
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

7. Improved knowledge/ skills/ capacity Improved OA processes/ workflows
Support for HEIs
Workshops
Webinars
Syntheses
Cost management
Advocacy
Institutional policy
Toolkits
Case studies
Templates
Cost savings
Cost efficiencies
Improved productivity
Improved knowledge/ skills/ capacity
Pathfinder projects
OA Community
Improved OA processes/ workflows
This is the RACI framework which shows relationships between those who are accountable, responsible , consulted and informed
10/11/2018
OA Good Practice Project

8. Pathfinder projects Coventry University Oxford Brookes University
Northumbria University
University of Hull
University of Manchester
University of Bath
University of Glasgow
University of Edinburgh
UCL
Midlands
North/ North East
North/ North West
South West/ Wales
Scotland
South East
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

9. Pathfinder projects Across regions
Across institutional types (mission, scale of research intensity)
Across professions (librarians, research managers, repository managers)
Across OA themes (cost management, advocacy etc.)
Across policies (RCUK/COAF, REF, Horizon 2020)
Across disciplines
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

10. Pathfinder outputs OA Lifecycle- Hull (HHuLOA)
Interactions that take place across OA ecosystem
Examining policy landscape and creating workflows that enable HEIs, researchers to navigate
Advocacy - Edinburgh (LOCH)/ UCL
Case study- Dept OA plans
Implementation plans/Responsibility matrix
Communications templates
PURE validation training
UCL producing Advocacy toolkit
Case Study- St Andrews Lean Methodology exercise
10/11/2018

11. St Andrews- before Lean exercise
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

12. St Andrews- after Lean exercise
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

13. Pathfinder Outputs Cost management
FCA analysis of admin cost overheads and how off-setting schemes are embedded into workflows (Bath)
Shareable cost modelling tool- model different scenarios in order to make better informed, strategic decisions on policies and funding (Northumbria)
Tools for HEIs with limited resources
OA Survival Guide (Manchester opeNWorks)
Case studies to build a richer understanding of their various approaches, structures, challenges and potential work arounds (Northumbria)
Metadata and standards- Glasgow (E2EOA)
Working on CASRAI & RIOXX profiles and towards shared OA metadata
OA workflows tab in EPrints - day-to-day management of OA rather than only that data that is required for reporting to third parties such as REF, RCUK and EU
10/11/2018

14. Things to look out for: Find out more at:
OA Good Practice blog:
Pathfinder Project Blogs:
@OA_GoodPractice
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

15. For more information, contact…
Sarah Fahmy
OA Good Practice Manager
Brettenham House, 5 Lancaster Place London WC2E 7EN T
Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide (click ‘Apply’ to change only the currently selected slide, or ‘Apply to All’ to change the footers on all slides).
jisc.ac.uk
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND
10/11/2018
Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide)

16. Uncovering researcher behaviours and engagement with Open Access #oagp
Researcher Behaviours and Attitudes – evidence so far. The Making Sense project

17. Making sense: a researcher centred approach to funder mandates
Stuart Hunt
Uncovering researcher behaviours and engagement with Open Access
Oxford Brookes University, 20th May 2015

18. Project aims
Provide a relevant, scalable, & practical set of tools that will support the researcher within their own specific context, enabling them to conform to funder mandates as an integral part of the research workflow.
Enable Oxford Brookes & associate institutions to conform to funder requirements in a way that supports the researcher.

19. Project partners Oxford Brookes University Nottingham Trent University
University of Portsmouth

20. Different perspectives
Institutional understanding of OA & compliance
Researchers understanding OA & compliance
Supporting & sustaining own processes & workflows
Supporting researchers

21. methodology Not process-driven Researcher context(s) Sensemaking
“Default thinking”*
Researcher context(s)
Constellation
Sensemaking
Ethnography
Phenomenology
Experience
“Getting people right”
*Madsbjerg, C & Rasmussen, M (2014). The moment of clarity: using the human sciences to solve
your toughest business problems. Harvard Business Review Press.

22. Sharon Potter Research Support Librarian Nottingham Trent University
10 November 2018

23. The research landscape at NTU
NTU is divided into three Colleges, which are subdivided into nine Academic Schools.
The University’s legacy is largely learning and teaching with a mixture of traditional and vocational courses.
NTU has world-leading research in certain fields such as cancer research and social policy…
…but it’s not a research intensive university. The University strategic aim is to grow its research environment, with School research plans including targets to increase the number of PGR students over the next five years.
10 November 2018

24. What we did at NTU
Conducted a small-scale survey based on semi structured interviews.
Interviewed 50 researchers over two months.
Recorded the interviews, wrote up the notes, and coded the answers using Google Forms to draw out the main findings.
Exported the results to an Excel spreadsheet to create profile charts and analyse trends through pivot tables.
Participants were mostly researchers who submitted to REF2014.
10 November 2018

25. Profile of the researchers interviewed
10 November 2018

26. Interview questions – broad themes
Dissemination
How do they decide to disseminate research?
Do they have a dissemination strategy?
Publishing
What factors are the most important when considering where to publish?
Open access
What do they understand by open access, including the difference between green and gold?
Do they understand how OA will affect the next REF?
What do they think are the benefits of OA?
Are they aware of any funder requirements regarding OA?
Do they publish regularly through OA? If not, why not?
How can the University help them to publish more regularly through OA?
10 November 2018

27. Sample findings
Blank = no appropriate response in coding options
Several researchers were aware of embargoes with the green option
A few thought gold is best (but weren’t sure in what way)
10 November 2018

28. 10 November 2018

29. 10 November 2018

30. 10 November 2018

31. 10 November 2018

32. A couple of researchers cited lack of academic standing as the only barrier
Lack of funding related to the fact most researchers associate open access with APCs
10 November 2018

33. What does this mean for us?
The Library Research Team at NTU has created a communication plan to address the barriers, especially around lack of understanding of copyright and processes
As a project group we were hoping to find one barrier to address, but the responses have revealed a wide range of answers
10 November 2018

34. What we might have done differently with hindsight
Designed the form to capture the responses before conducting the interviews
The form was designed on examining too few responses
Ensured the interviewers interpreted the responses in the same way
Asked more direct questions, e.g. “What makes you publish in OA?”
10 November 2018

35. Making Sense at Portsmouth
Andrew Simpson & Emily Bennett
University Library
Research and Innovation Services

36. Interviews Semi-structured, informal conversations
Started with research leads – 11 across all faculties interviewed by our Research Outputs Manager
Then extended to academics interviewed by their subject librarians – 4 interviewed in Creative Technologies so far
Though sample is small, we have learned a great deal through having the opportunity for open conversations

37. Findings
Broadly aware of OA and accepted its importance for the REF, RCUK etc. but not aware of the details and their implications
Common misunderstandings -
Didn’t consider OA in publication strategy before submitting
Difference between OA and hybrid journals
Difference between the ‘3 month rule’ and embargoes
Assumed you can always take the green route to comply
Not aware of the high cost of APCs
Don’t know what REF panel they will be submitting to
Just want to know what they have to do to comply
The ‘what academics wanted’ is covered under the ‘actions’ section.

38. Actions
Some common issues were quickly apparent and actions were taken to address these
The interviews also helped inform our ongoing activities with awareness raising
Some examples…

39. OA awareness plan
It was clear no single approach to awareness was going to work
So ensured we had a plan with a variety of methods
Uses various methods. (ie. it was clear from pathfinder interviews that one single approach / technique will not work).
Developed by OA working group.
Still work in progress.

40. OA sessions
People were happy to attend university wide presentations if at a time they could do
OA sessions increased to every 6 weeks at various times
Smaller groups
Part of general Researcher Development Programme
ie. pathfinder interviews found that people were happy to sign up to university-wide open access events. But smaller groups events are better. So we’ve arranged these to run about every 6 weeks throughout
We are also running department / research group specific sessions for those who want it.

41. Flow chart - A number requested a one page printable flow-chart – so we created one…
A one page printable flow chart was requested by numerous people in the pathfinder interviews.
Extended HEFCE’s to keep their branding, and make it clear it was an external requirement. (Another misunderstanding in the interviews was the OA requirements as a UoP requirement, not an externally imposed requirement).
Sarah Fahmy is putting this into the next Pathfinder Update as “an example of advocacy tools being produced”.

42. System They found current mix of systems confusing
Reinforced our move to a single portal
Pathfinder interviews found that academics were confused with the current system of uploading to Pure, and then content being transferred to Parade (eprints), and then onto their staff profile pages. There were also concerned their profile pages became out of date quickly.
They wanted an overall simpler system, plus to have more control over updating their profiles.
The Portsmouth Research Portal brings everything onto one system. It allows academics to update their profiles, organise their own pages and highlight publications they consider to be important, makes it clear who to contact for help, etc.

43. The interviews also led to some tailored support…
We analysed samples (approximately 50) of our Business School and Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation journals.
Results demonstrated most but not all journals comply with HEFCE or RCUK via the green route, so there is a need to check before submitting.
This helped reinforce the message that they do need to consider where to publish at an early stage, whilst keeping the limitations in perspective
Pathfinder interviews highlighted that academics did not always understand the importance of checking where they are going to publish before submitting their articles.
But showing academics a sample of journals they publish in, made it clear why this was important. However, it also showed that while it is important to check (ie. to avoid any problematic journals if possible), the situation is not that bad and it’s important to keep things in perspective.
Presented results to both these research groups, and as example for the wider university.

44. We were able to identify staff who already added items to ArXiv and set-up an import to Pure
Also, the pathfinder interviews highlighted that the openaccess needs to be made as easy as possible for academics, so set up the Arxiv importer to tackle the issue of ICG researchers (who have 100s names on each article) having to type in names again.

45. We were able to set up reports and dashboards in Pure for research leads
This was requested from people in the pathfinder interviews.
Allows research leads to monitor and manage what researchers in their area are doing. And, chase them if they’ve not uploaded articles to Pure.
e.g. use information in Pure to do reviews etc.
Could mention the response to Pal’s meetings with Readers and Profs (ie. academics uploaded 500 articles over one weekend in response to an from Pal telling them he was reviewing their work based on what’s in Pure.)

46. Individual help
The vast majority of people do want to be able to contact someone for advice
We have promoted help
We do not validate recent articles without a post-print and so deal with queries at published stage
Now starting to get more questions at an earlier stage asking about which journals comply
All takes time though!
Pathfinder interviews: the vast majority of people wanted to be able to contact someone in the library for advice.
We have started to get a lot of questions, e.g. an academic deciding on where to submit his paper, first ed the address with the list of 5 potential journals and asked which one would let him comply with HEFCE via the green route.
This is what we want academics to do, however, it is time consuming answering their questions.

47. Andrew Simpson, Associate University Librarian Emily Bennett, Research Outputs Manager

48. What Next? Oxford Brookes Ethnographical Interview Who? How?
Grand Tour
Tell me about your research How do researchers communicate their research?
What triggers them to publish?
How do they choose where to publish?
Mini Tour
What are you working on the moment?
How has the experience been so far?

49. What Next? Longitudinal studies using cultural probes
Methodology – observations, video, existing record methods
eg.lab books, discussing .. (collect the data)

50. The project so far? - Baselining
CIAO is a benchmarking tool for assessing institutional readiness for Open Access (OA) compliance. The tool is based on the CARDIO (Collaborative Assessment of Research Data Infrastructure and Objectives-

51. CIAO
Post Ref Roadshows start next week
New staff

52. The project so far? - Baselining

53. The project so far? - Baselining

54. See how we make sense of it all, follow this
More information
See how we make sense of it all, follow this
Blog:
approach

55. QUESTIONS

56. OA – Understanding what needs to change and how
1. Individual brainstorm: write down on post-it notes all the problems with OA that they are currently experiencing (10 mins)
approach

57. OA – Understanding what needs to change and how
2. Group reviews all problems and group them as
a. Problem from university perspective (e.g. ‘academics don’t deposit)
b. Problem from researcher perspective (e.g. academics unclear on Green vs Gold)
c. If both, break it down into what the problem is for each (20 mins)
approach

58. OA – Understanding what needs to change and how
3.  Group identifies top 3 university problems and top 3 researcher problems: discussion - are they the same problems? Are there additional problems? (10 mins)
4.  Group selects top 3 researcher problems to take forward to the afternoon session (10 mins)
approach

59. In the Lounge on the Ground floor
Time for lunch
In the Lounge on the Ground floor
Back in Chakrabati Room (2nd floor) – 1.20