Open Access at UCL and Bournemouth University

Quite different institutions but similarities in publications management at systems level:

  • Both use Symplectic Elements to manage publications and EPrints for IR
  • BU Research and Knowledge Exchange Office manages OA funding and ‘Bournemouth Research Information and Networking’ while the IR (BURO) is managed by the library
  • UCL Library manages both OA funding and publications through the Research Publications Service (RPS – think this is the Symplectic Elements) and Discovery (EPrints)

Publications Management

  • Researchers manage their data via Symplectic, which can also get data from Scopus and Web of Science, the data is then pushed out to profile pages and/or Repository

Institutional Repositories

  • UCL IR (Discovery) is both metadata only and full-text outputs – 317794 outputs in total – includes 5111 theses
  • Bournemouth only has full-text  – much smaller numbers – 2831 outputs in total – not all public access

Staff support

  • UCL – a Virtual Open Access Team
  • Bournemouth
    • OA Funding – 1 manager
    • No fulltime repository staff
    • Rota of 3 editorial staff, working one week in three on outputs received
    • 0.2 repository administrator
    • 0.2 Repository manager

OA Funding

  • UCL OA funding managed by OA Team in the library
    • Combination of RCUK, UCL and Wellcome funding
    • at least 9000 research pubs per annum
    • RCUK 2013-14 target: 693 papers – successfully processed 796
    • Current level of APC payments >2000 per annum

UCL has many pre-payment agreements in place for APCs

  • BioMed Central
  • Elsevier
  • BMJ Journals
  • RSC
  • IEEE
  • PeerJ
  • Sage
  • PLOS
  • Springer
  • T&F
  • Wiley
  • ubiquity press
  • and more – and hoping to extend further

Pre-payment agreements have been very successful and saved money

Both Bournemouth and UCL have found it challenging to spend all the money available for APCs

Challenges for engagement

  • UCL Discovery
    • Metadatga only outputs – poor quality, not checked, can be entered multiple times
    • Feeds into Symplectic Elements from Scopus and WoS can lead to duplicates: Scopus sometimes has records for pre and post publication and WoS can have a record also – and academics select all three rather than just choosing one of them
    • Academic engagement
    • Difficulty sending large files from RPS (Symplectic) to IR
    • Furious about how h index is calculated in RPS (manual entries aren’t counted, only items from Scopus / WoS)
    • Incorrect search settings in RPS
    • Don’t understand the data harvesting process – user managed to crash the system by entering single word search with common author name
  • Bournemouth BURO
    • 2013 – converted with full-text only
    • Mapping data issues
    • Incorrect publications display on original staff pages
    • Academic staff left thinking BURO no longer existed [think implication is that it looked liked it had been replaced by RPS?]

UCL have very clear requirement for outputs to be deposited in IR – http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/open-access/ref/

Sheer volume of outputs at UCL is overwhelming

At Bournemouth – advocacy a big issue still (especially since many thought BURO had been discontinued) – but now outputs in BURO and BRIAN must be considered in pay and progression.

Shared challenges

  • Deposit on acceptance
  • Open Access options – making sure academics know what routes of publication are open to them
  • Establishing new workflows
  • Publishers move goalposts, change conditions etc.
  • Flexible support
  • Encouraging champions in Faculties
  • Use the REF2020 as a stick and a carrot for their research

UCL as a whole supports Green OA, but assists academics to meet their requirements through Gold OA route. UCL feels Gold will still be important to science disciplines

BU – funding will be available and has institutional support – but issues may arise depending on volume in the future

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *