1. Open access in REF – Planning Workshop
Heriot-Watt University update
Linda Kerr
Information Services, Heriot-Watt University

2. Open access at Heriot-Watt
Repository – Pure CRIS. Managed by Planning Directorate with input from Information Services (IS) for Publications and Data
Purchased for the REF
Previously, repository was IS-Managed theses only using DSpace
Steep change in organisational culture to add full-text - create a “repository” in addition to a publications database/CRIS/REF tool
New staff more familiar with concept than existing staff

3. Open access at Heriot-Watt
Heriot-Watt Research Publications Policy – July 2014 :
“In order to comply with the UK HE funding bodies “Policy for open access in the post Research Excellence Framework”, authors must record details of all journal articles and conference proceedings in Pure, and upload the Accepted Version of the paper to Pure, no more than three months after acceptance.”

4. Open access support structure
RCUK open access fund – managed centrally. (£157k )
New structure – previously devolved to the Schools
Extra workload on central team – one staff member paid for out of RCUK money.

5. Open access at Heriot-Watt
Onus is on academic staff to make sure their publications are added to Pure
However, Pure is regularly updated with published papers from Scopus and Web of Science (central admin Library task)
School research admin staff will help authors to upload papers or will upload paper on their behalf
Varies from School to School
Recent analysis showed that School with research admin staff have higher “compliance” of full-text.

6. Open access at Heriot-Watt
Compliance - approx 43% ( )
Set alert on ScienceDirect and add Accepted manuscript for the author.
Author gets notified in Pure when a paper has been added

7. Engagement across University
Initial meetings between research administrator and Library / Planning staff – Pure new template, advocacy
Support materials developed in School of Engineering and Physical Sciences – flow-chart of deposit process printed and given to every researcher in the School
EPS Template circulated to other Schools
More detailed Pure deposit guide developed by IS
Support materials from Pathfinder projects used in discussions

8. Engagement with researchers
Briefing sessions in Schools by those with research administrative staff – part of research briefings
As records are validated in Pure, (2015) authors ed with a pre-prepared asking them to upload copy of manuscript to Pure. Response rate about 50%
Responses have led to more support materials to address:
Which version (guide for research admin staff and authors)?
Publishers’ policies – variations by publisher
Strategies for identifying accepted papers in arXiv, & on publishers’ websites
Changing procedures – eg now upload supporting documents from authors or publishers

9. Engagement across University
You may be aware that from April 2016 onwards, in order for a peer-reviewed article or conference proceeding to be included in a future REF submission, the Funding Councils mandate that the *accepted* manuscript should be deposited in an institutional repository (Pure) no later than three months after acceptance.  
For the first year of the Policy, the Funding Councils will accept papers deposited up to three months after publication.  To work towards compliance, to raise awareness and develop institutional processes, we are contacting all authors to make them aware of the Policy and ask them to deposit in Pure the Author Accepted Manuscript /Draft Manuscript for all papers published in 2015 as soon as possible after acceptance (even if the paper has been published).  For a full description on what is required, please see: and Many thanks.

10. Engagement with researchers via Pure
Advantages:
Reaches all who publish as records are systematically loaded weekly from Scopus
Enables us to see real-world issues
More papers have been uploaded. Awareness raised.
Disadvantages:
Leads to the expectation that central or School admin staff will upload the papers for staff
Papers have already been published
Staff who are not REF eligible or don’t expect to be or don’t expect their paper to be selected question why they should upload

11. Advocacy
Re-stating of University Policy via the Research and Knowledge Exchange Board
Continuing message to staff via Directors of Research
Possible “symposium” as held for Research Data Policies
Posters and support printed materials updated, web pages updated
Pure to be part of staff induction (new staff)
Tie in with research data management work

12. Monitoring How many of our papers are compliant?
Pure will be used to monitor this – upgraded Pure with new OA template this week. Some issues with this eg no comments have been carried over from old system.
Start entering the acceptance date and any pre-existing data added in the bib. field.
Pure upgraded to Pure 5 with REF2020 template in January.

13. Challenges
How to engage staff who don’t come to meetings, or read s
Is the author-centred approach working?
Where does the responsibility of repository managers end and Unit of Assessment coordinators begin?

14. Progress towards April 2016
How will new REF rules affect us?
Policy of “deposit accepted manuscript in Pure asap” will not change
More leeway for systems to develop and staff to get the message
Possibility of monitoring via third-party repositories (eg arXiv)

15. Research Support Librarian
Linda Kerr
Research Support Librarian
Phone ext: 3572