[Open-access] HEFCE OA policy and the issue around date of acceptance

Mon Apr 14 11:10:17 UTC 2014

So this is an interesting challenge for an OA publisher who wants to be able
to sell the concept of ³publish with us and you¹re always compliant². That
said its an interesting opportunity to sort out some of the pain points in
the workflow of deposition. In turn it offers an opportunity for publishers
to provide services that help, while at the same time allowing IRs to ensure
that they¹re not relying on publisher systems.

I agree with Stevan that institutions shouldn¹t rely on publishers. We¹ve
had several weeks of demonstrations of why that¹s a bad idea with the
Wellcome and Cambridge University data releases. But that doesn¹t mean that
those of us who want to help shouldn¹t.

An interesting workflow might look like this:
1. Paper accepted
2. Publisher sends email to author containing: final manuscript, link to IR
deposit site, metadata package
3. Author clicks on link, then drags and drops the metadata package file and
manuscript onto the deposit window, IR does the rest
4. IR notifies publisher of an update link/webhook for any further deposits
of updated versions
5. At any additional update publisher sends a similar email, If author
wishes to update the IR with proofs or final published version they can
follow the same workflow each time
6. IR can poll publisher for any updates if it wishes, and publisher can
notify IR of any updates as appropriate.
This could be a nice example of creating systems which can talk together to
be helpful, but ultimately aren¹t dependent on any other player in the
system. At the same time it enables a publisher to be helpful, without
requiring that an IR use Œtheir¹ system. All it would really require is a
deposit form that can accept a dropped file and the defined format for that
package. 

Cheers

Cameron

From:  "Reimer, Torsten F" <t.reimer at imperial.ac.uk>
Date:  Wednesday, 9 April 2014 16:15
To:  "'open-access at lists.okfn.org'" <open-access at lists.okfn.org>
Subject:  [Open-access] HEFCE OA policy and the issue around date of
acceptance

> Dear All,
>  
> A potential issue with the HEFCE REF/OA policy¹s focus of ³acceptance² as
> opposed to ³publication² is that institutions have no way of knowing whether
> an academic is about to publish a paper unless they tell us. Had it been date
> of publication (+3 months) there would at least have been a chance that our
> CRIS could have picked up there is a new publication so that we could have
> checked whether it has been made open access in the way the policy outlines 
> or alternatively work with the author to make that happen.
>  
> Now, it will be in the interest of the author to meet the requirements of the
> policy and we can certainly put effort into communicating the policy, but even
> assuming everyone is aware of it an plays along there is still the issue that
> at the point of publication we only have incomplete metadata. So the academic
> has to somehow share the accepted version of the paper with us, including what
> metadata they have. Once we know the publication date we then have to update
> that record and set the correct embargo period (where there is one) from the
> date of publication. Now, the latter step can be automated, the first one
> can¹t.
>  
> Šunless: Wouldn¹t it be great if the publishers would, on the date of
> acceptance, alert us to the fact that there is an article, send us the
> metadata and ideally also the peer-reviewed manuscript  preferably in a way
> that can then go directly into the repository. That would ensure that no
> article is forgotten; it would not burden the author with extra effort; it
> would ensure we comply with the policy;  and finally, the publisher and the
> university could be confident that the correct version ends up in the
> repository, so we can forget about takedown notices etc.
>  
> Especially with more widespread use of ORCID I cannot see a reason why in
> principle this would not work. What are your thoughts?
>  
> (While I am thinking naïve thoughts: Wouldn¹t it be great if articles would be
> submitted through a kind of shared system that did all of this work in the
> background, even the reporting and compliance? Automate the process for
> everyone? This may be unrealistic, but if I were still at Jisc this is what I
> would at least consider.)
>  
> Best wishes,
> Torsten
>  
> Dr Torsten Reimer
> Project Manager (Open Access)
> Research Office
> Level 5, Sherfield Building
> Imperial College London, Exhibition Road
> South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ
> Tel: 020 7594 3190  Fax: 020 7594 1265
> http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/researchsupport
> <http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/researchsupport>
> https://twitter.com/torstenreimer <https://twitter.com/torstenreimer>
>  
> _______________________________________________ open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140414/8c43f76d/attachment-0002.html>