Currently takes data from UKPMC, looks for an affiliation statement in text of publication, pushes to appropriate institutional repository based on that affiliation (if the IR has given permission for this to happen).
Uses SWORD to push paper to the IR
Can also browse all the content, search by target repository and author
Also API to the data in the Router.
Currently trying to understand how the HEFCE REF OA mandate impacts on what the Router should do and how it can help institutions deliver to the mandate.
Major change is the requirement for AAM – which wasn’t the previous requirement
One of the most important question was how institutions would like to get AAMs delivered to them – 3 options:
- i. 3rd party service to push content to your system – 37% of respondents didn’t know if they would want this approach
- ii. Pull content into your system using an API – 31% don’t know if this would work for them
- iii. Receive content via email as a file attachment – 43% said ‘OK at a push’ and 30% saw as satisfactory
If there was another solution what would it be:
- Deposit at publication
- Academics upload
- SWORD would be good if institution/author matching is ‘really good’
- Anything involved minimal reliance on academics updating information
- Publishers to provide metadata to institution on acceptance
- Being notified of accepted manuscripts by publishers so then can coordinate with authors
Broke into discussion groups for the following questions:
- How would you ideally like to receive AAMs (or metadata describing them)
- If Router starts to provide AAMs (or metadata describing them) at acceptance and then later provide metadata for the published version of record (VoR) – what are the reduplication issues?
- If you receive multiple copies of the same version what are the de-duplication issues
- What are the main issue holding you back for participating? What help would you require?
- What is the one most important feature that is essential to you?
Feedback from groups:
- Pure doesn’t currently have a field for ‘date of acceptance’
- Better to get the manuscript but the metadata is better than nothing
- In some cases (especially with AAMs) you may have the manuscript and minimal metadata
- De-duplication a huge issue – to the extent that examples of institutions having to turn off automated feeds from sources such as Scopus (see also Bournemouth yesterday)
- Getting any kind of notification of acceptance would be a huge step for those working in institutions
- Getting notification of publication as well would be big step
- A pull method preferred – may need local processing before you publisher
- ‘extra’ metadata – e.g. corresponding author – would be highly useful – not available from WoS
- If local system doesn’t have ability to store that metadata then this is a problem
- Boundary between push/pull is not very clear. E.g. notification is ‘push’
- Got to be clear about what is being pushed and where to
- Reluctant to have repository populated without human intervention
- EPrints and DSpace have a ‘review queue’ function
- Having more publishers on board with the Router is key – if you don’t have good coverage it’s just one more source
- Identifiers! If you have identifiers for AAMs (DOIs) it might help with de-duplication
- If you are confident as an institution that Authors will deposit AAMs then the real issue becomes very much being notified at publication [found this point very interesting – points to a real divide in institutional attitudes about what authors will do]
- People still trying to work out workflows
- Maybe a mixed message to researchers/authors if some is automated and some is not