27 October 2016

Open in Action conversations

As described in our last post, the theme of this year's Open Access Week 'Open in Action' was all about taking concrete steps to open up research and scholarship and encouraging others to do the same.



With this in mind, the Library invited all researchers to join their OA experts at a range of drop-in sessions. To share the outcomes of these conversations even further, we have listed the most commonly asked questions here along with the support available from the Open Access team and colleagues.

The main themes discussed so far have been:

Focus on ‘acceptance’

The key message is to ‘act on acceptance’ and deposit all articles and proceedings in Pure (the University’s research system) along with the full date of acceptance. Most authors find this easiest to do in the active period following acceptance, and most publishers allow accepted versions (not published pdfs) to be made open access by this route. See our web page for a 2 minute 'deposit demo'.

Not just for REF

Making your work Open is not just about compliance with REF policies. The University expects staff to deposit ALL articles in Pure, not just those you expect to submit to REF. This is not only because we don't yet know the shape of the next REF, but that we want to give visibility to all research outputs. Researchers can add all kinds of research publications and activities in Pure, and make links with their projects and underlying data. The Library provides integrated support on using Pure – contact the Pure Helpdesk for advice or training.
 

The cost of Open Access

Most publishers offer a paid route to Open Access, known as the ‘gold’ route. Except for a few cases where research funders prefer this route, the good news is you don’t have to pay extra for making your work open in traditional journals. Use the ‘green’ route, and all it costs is a few minutes of your time to deposit in Pure.

'Open in Action' conversations: Questions and answers 

 

Q: does my publisher allow open access after I deposit in Pure?

Almost always the answer is "Yes", though there may be conditions. You are normally permitted to deposit your author-created accepted version following peer-review, but not proofs or published versions. There might also be an embargo period before the deposited version can be made Open. Don't worry, the Library will take care of this provided you deposit on acceptance!

Q: do I have to do this for everything?

As mentioned above - you should deposit ALL articles in Pure, not just those you expect to submit to REF. Open Access is not just for Christmas (or REF)!
You can choose to make other outputs such as book chapters Open Access, provided we can get permission from publishers - contact us for advice.

Q: what information do I need to add in Pure? 

Fill in the mandatory fields when creating a record, and make sure to add the full date of acceptance for articles and proceedings. When you upload a file, set the document version as 'accepted author manuscript' and choose access as 'Open'. You can also link any projects or underlying data under 'Relations'. The Library will enhance the records and take care of the rest.

Q: can you explain more about the date of acceptance?

Yes we can! In short: once peer review stages are complete, 'date of acceptance' is when you are made aware that all academically necessary changes have been made in response to reviewer comments. Hefce has published official advice. There are many queries around this, and a call to the OA team might be the best way to resolve them. The key thing is to decide on the most appropriate date and add it in Pure.

Q: do I have to pay for Open Access?

There is no charge for depositing in Pure - the 'green' route to OA. You are not expected to pay for OA to be compliant with the REF OA Policy. There will only be a charge if you have chosen a fully open access journal that charges APCs rather than subscriptions, or if your funder has stricter requirements that means you need to choose the 'gold' route.

Q: I chose 'Gold' OA, do I still need to deposit in Pure?

Yes - you need to deposit your article in Pure in all cases, so please deposit the accepted version as soon as possible. This makes sure we can report effectively and provide advice as early as possible. In the case of articles with Creative Commons licences, we will be able to make the final version Open Access.

Q: Will deposit in Pure meet my funder's requirements?

Not always. Certain funders such as MRC, EU (Horizon2020) and Wellcome Trust have strict limits on embargo periods and a preference for immediate Open Access. In some cases we can provide help with funding to pay APCs, or you may be able to use your grant - see more on research funder's policies.

Q: Can you tell me more about the content I can put in Pure, and how this makes research outputs more visible?

The best way to find out more about Pure is to check the Pure web pages or contact the Pure Helpdesk for advice or training. Pure provides web services to make content available from School web pages as well as the main Research Portal.


If you have additional questions - or want to arrange a drop-in specially for your School or department, get in touch with us at openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk

Meanwhile, get into the OA habit so you can benefit from the wide audience your work deserves!

18 October 2016

Our commitment to putting Open in action

Open Access Week 2016 (24-30 Oct) aims to advance open access on a global scale, all year round. We introduced the theme of this year's event in an earlier post.

OA Week http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This year's theme of 'Open in Action' is all about taking concrete steps to open up research and scholarship and encouraging others to do the same. (Nick Shockey, http://www.openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/commit-to-putting-open-in-action)
See a range of ideas for taking action at the Open in Action Portal including discovering Open Access journals in your discipline and starting conversations about Open Access.

The St Andrews Open Access team is making a commitment to enabling conversations about Open Access. During October we have already had many conversations, thanks to the School of Management inviting us to the Gateway for Open Access drop-in sessions. We took a practical approach, looking at individual ressearch profiles in our research information system (Pure). One-to-ones allowed staff to put their own questions to the OA experts and check they felt ready to respond to OA policies and gain the benefits of OA.

We are holding 3 more drop-in sessions during Open Access Week, open to all St Andrews researchers. Come and meet the team, and make sure you are ready!

Monday 24th Oct – 13:00 – 16:00 The Gateway (café area)
Tuesday 25th Oct – 13:00 – 16:00 Martyrs Kirk (New Park Seminar Room)
Thursday 27th Oct – 09:00 – 12:00 Martyrs Kirk (New Park Seminar Room)

All members of staff are welcome to drop-in to find out how we can help with:
  • how to deposit publications in Pure
  • Open Access for REF eligibility
  • checking funders' OA policies
  • advising on publishers' OA options
  • any other queries about Open Access


We can also provide information about support for Research Data Management, regarding:
  • uploading data in Pure
  • sharing your data
  • funders' policies on research data

21 September 2016

Kathryn Rudy's new book published, and it's open access!


© Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, CC BY 4.0.
Kathryn Rudy, senior lecturer in the School of Art History, has just published her latest book with Open Book Publishers. The book is licensed under a creative commons CC BY licence, and so is freely available for download from the publisher and our repository. The ebook has also been added to our library catalogue by Elizabeth Cuthill, who has been mentioned before on this blog for her work creating high quality MARC records for this publisher, you can see the catalogue record here: http://library.st-andrews.ac.uk/record=b2429660~S5. This work isn't just for the benefit of St Andrews, it also benefits the library community at large, as these records are fed back to Open Book Publishers for distribution to other parties.

Here is a snippet from the book's abstract to whet your appetite:

Medieval manuscripts resisted obsolescence[...]Rather than discard them when they were superseded, book owners found ways to update, amend and upcycle books or book parts.
Rudy considers ways in which book owners adjusted the contents of their books from the simplest (add a marginal note, sew in a curtain) to the most complex (take the book apart, embellish the components with painted decoration, add more quires of parchment). By making sometimes extreme adjustments, book owners kept their books fashionable and emotionally relevant. This study explores the intersection of codicology and human desire.
Rudy shows how increased modularisation of book making led to more standardisation but also to more opportunities for personalisation. She asks: What properties did parchment manuscripts have that printed books lacked? What are the interrelationships among technology, efficiency, skill loss and standardisation?
© Uppsala Universitetsbiblioteket, CC BY 4.0.


A previous blog post about Open Book Publishers can be read here. In the post we highlighted the cataloguing team's work to create MARC records for all the books on the OBP catalogue (no small feat!). We also looked at some of the interesting and novel ways that OBP are trying to escape the bonds of print, by incorporating alternative media into the electronic versions of their books.




Kathryn M. Rudy, Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized their Manuscripts. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0094

8 September 2016

St Andrews supports new publisher requirements set by Wellcome Trust

Wellcome Trust has had an Open Access policy for its research publications since 2005, and now leads the Charity Open Access Fund (COAF). Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at Wellcome, has announced that from 1 April 2017 any papers submitted that acknowledge Wellcome funding must meet the new, additional requirements. Publishers must indicate that they can meet the service standards by 15 December 2016 to be included in a list that Wellcome will make public. Outputs will be audited to check that listed publishers continue to meet services standards.

Summary

Existing

  • Available from the Europe PMC repository 
  • Made available under a Creative Commons attribution licence 
  • Deposited as the final published version

Additional

  • Publisher invoices must include digital object identifier (DOI), authors, funders and licence 
  • Publisher must have a publicly available reimbursement policy 
  • Publisher must update deposited articles with post-publication material changes

Aims

It is hoped that these changes will:
  • improve article processing charge (APC) processes and minimise post-publication licence corrections; 
  • help authors, funders and institutions determine whether an APC can be reimbursed from COAF; 
  • increase the integrity of funder-designated repositories and the scholarly record by ensuring that the most up-to-date, accurate publication is available.
Although the requirements might seem onerous several major publishers such as Wiley and Springer Nature have already confirmed their ability to comply. Many publishers that already systematically deposit into Europe PubMed Central as part of their Gold publication service already update articles with corrections, retractions and expressions of concern (CREs).

There is widespread community support amongst charities and sector bodies (Jisc, SCONUL, UKCoRR, and Research Libraries UK). The Open Access Support team agrees that the new publisher requirements will help everyone concerned to better understand what is needed for compliance, their obligations, and improve the accuracy and availability of research outputs for re-use. Wellcome has established a reputation as an Open Access leader and many funders including government shadow its initiatives. We hope this initiative might positively encourage publishers to deliver their advertised services and help reduce non-compliance with other funder mandates too.

COAF funded research organisations

26 August 2016

BMC Ecology image competition: results

Well, it's that time of year when we get to post lots of nice pictures courtesy of the open access journal BMC Ecology. Each year BMC Ecology runs a photographic image competition to celebrate biodiversity and the beauty of the natural environment, and this year it coincides with St Andrews Photography Festival which is a nice coincidence! The theme of this year's competition was the interaction between nature and human activity and technology.

Overall winner: “The striking landscape of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park during sunrise. This south African park is characterized by vast arid landscapes with red dunes, sparse vegetation and camel thorn trees.” Attribution: Davide Gaglio. CC BY
Winner, Community, Population, and Macroecology: “I was snorkeling in a remote lagoon in the Sudanese Red Sea when I was suddenly surrounded by hundreds of spinner dolphins. The school stayed around for hours, visibly enjoying the interaction with snorkelers in the water. The school was clearly subdivided into dozens of smaller groups of either females with their offspring or adult males.” Attribution: Julia Spät. CC BY
“This photo of a herd of waterbuck in the morning mist was taken by a motion-detecting trail camera in the Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique. A network of fifty trail cameras were set up by Paola Bouley, a researcher who is studying how the lion population is rebounding in Gorongosa after decades of war devastated wildlife populations. Hundreds of thousands of photos that she and her team have collected are available for citizen scientists to help her identify on the website WildCam Gorongosa. Waterbuck are a common sight in Gorongosa as their population has exploded to over 34,000 individuals up from only a few hundred after the war. Scientists are studying the waterbuck population to learn why they are experiencing such rapid growth.” Attribution: Chuck Schultz (Science Education Department, Howard Hughes Medical Institute). CC BY

This is just a small selection of the images published this year, in total there were 26 images, all licensed under a CC BY attribution licence, so they are free to reuse, copy and distribute.

The Editorial complete with all images can be found here: 10.1186/s12898-016-0090-z

“This image was taken in Adelaide Botanic garden [in 2016]. Rainbow lorikeets are such colorful parrots that it is hard to mistake them for other species. The related Scaly-breasted lorikeet is similar in size and shape, but can be distinguished by its all-green head and body.” Attribution: Abd Al-Bar Al-Farha (University of Adelaide, Australia). CC BY

10 August 2016

Flipping journals to Open Access: an extensive Harvard University literature review

Harvard University last week released an extensive 224 page literature review on subscription journals flipping to Open Access. The review's principal aim is to "disentangle different options", in order to "help publishers deliberate intelligently about their options". In total the authors find 15 options available to journals wanting to flip to OA, and interestingly 5 of these do not involve levying charges (most commonly referred to as Article Processing Charges).

The inclusion of so many non-APC reliant flipping pathways is very illuminating and certainly will be news to some people.
"Truncating or oversimplifying the range of options causes harm. For example, as noted, many stakeholders believe that there’s only one business model for OA journals, namely, charging APCs. This assumption has never been true and has never even been close. Every measurement for more than a decade has shown that roughly three-quarters of OA journals charge no author-side fees at all, and in fact, that roughly three-quarters of subscription journals charge author-side fees on top of their reader-side fees. The false assumption that all OA journals charge APCs stultifies the debate by limiting discussion to the one best-known option. It also stultifies the deliberations of publishers who believe, perhaps correctly, that the best-known option won’t work for them, and therefore conclude, prematurely, that no model will work for them." (Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. p. 4)
In the introduction Peter Suber, Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and editor of the review, mentions the value of the review in offering a resource for libraries struggling with rising subscription prices. He suggests that the rising cost of subscriptions could be a catalyst to stimulate talks about flipping to OA, given that another possible outcome is losing subscriptions entirely which benefits neither side.
"Academic Librarians are in a good position to make the case that converting to OA is better than cancellation, for everyone, and that new evidence shows that converting to OA can preserve or enhance readership, submissions, quality, and financial sustainability." (Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. p. 5)
Solomon, David, J. Mikael Laakso, and Bo-Christer Björk (authors). Peter Suber (editor). 2016. Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27803834. CC-BY

28 July 2016

We've now reached 8000 items in our repository!

Last week the St Andrews Research Repository reached a new milestone: 8000 items!

The last major content milestone we celebrated was when we reached 5000 items, this was back in February 2015. The blog post we wrote in recognition of this mentioned that the upsurge in activity was largely down to research funders and HEFCE (the folks behind the Research Excellence Framework) requiring authors to self-archive their publications. 17 months on and this trend is continuing.

In April 2016 the Research Excellence Framework open access policy came into effect (to find out more read our previous blog post). This means that to ensure compliance with the policy authors must deposit their accepted manuscripts for journal articles and conference proceedings into the University's research information system (Pure). To ensure all St Andrews researchers are aware of the policy we have been working hard to deliver the message: 'Act on acceptance: deposit in Pure'. This slogan, which is emblazoned on posters around the University, is just one part of a tapestry of approaches to increase author self-archiving rates across the University. Currently the REF compliance rate for the whole University is very high at around 85%.

We are also still continuing our support for Gold Open Access. Gold OA usually requires a payment, called an APC or Article Processing Charge, and providing all the conditions are met the Library will cover this charge. The charges average out at around £1500, but can be anywhere from a few hundred pounds to more than £4000. The 8000th item was published Gold Open Access, by the publisher BioMed Central. It is freely available (with a Creative Commons attribution licence) either from the publisher or from our repository.

8000th article:
Title: Changes in selective pressures associated with human population expansion may explain metabolic and immune related pathways enriched for signatures of positive selection
Journal: BMC Genomics