Guest Post – Assessing User Perceptions of an Open Access Subvention Fund – The Scholarly Kitchen

“After eight years of funding open access (OA) articles, University Libraries at Virginia Tech has a wealth of quantitative data on article processing charges (APC). However, we lacked qualitative information on authors’ perceptions about funding OA articles, how this funding supports research in specific disciplines, and how authors view OA publishing in general. Since the fund’s inception, the Library’s expenditures on APCs has increased over 500%, prompting us to ask authors about their perceptions of the Open Access Subvention Fund (OASF) as we consider its future development and sustainability….

In fall 2019 we conducted a survey of all the VT authors and co-authors who had requested APC support between August 2012 and October 2019….

As context for understanding respondents’ views on the OASF, we wanted to learn about their views on the value of OA publishing more generally. Overall the attitudes were positive (perhaps not surprising given that those receiving the survey were seeking funding to publish OA) but the nuances are useful to understand.

 

56% of respondents felt that OA publishing should be a positive factor in promotion and tenure (P&T) considerations. But, 58% said it had not been discussed by any P&T committee they served on.
63% of the respondents received no special recognition from their departments for publishing an OA article.
Only 20% of authors reported that they deposited their articles in VTechWorks (our institutional repository). This indicates they may not be aware of the added exposure that the repository could provide for their work. Or, they may believe that by publishing the work OA, there is no need to provide a duplicate a copy in VTechWorks. (Note: OASF-supported articles are deposited in VTechWorks by Scholarly Communication Department staff if the authors do not deposit them.)
Authors are spreading the word about the OASF to their colleagues. While the Library uses a number of communication channels to advertise the fund, word of mouth seems to be very  effective. Nearly 80% indicated that they passed on information they got from a Library session, and 49% of respondents said they learned about the fund from a colleague.
Authors report encouraging others to publish in OA journals, including colleagues at VT (37%) and other universities (20%), graduate students (34%), and occasionally undergraduate students (8%)….”

Call 2020 Librarian Community Call – OpenCon

“Join us on August 11th for a demo and discussion of Shareyourpaper.org, a new tool from the non-profit Open Access Button that allows anyone to freely and easily make articles Open Access. Shareyourpaper.org integrates with your repository in less than 30 minutes and makes self-archiving a drag and drop process by automatically — completing forms, checking what can be archived legally, and verifying the correct version is shared — so that authors can upload their papers without libraries having to check their work.

This call brings together all librarians working with, or learning about, all things Open–and gives folks an opportunity to connect with each other to better their work and librarianship. …”

The never-ending story | Research Information

“At the same time, the REF open access mandate had just been announced, stating journal articles and some conference proceedings had to be publicly accessible within three months of acceptance for publication in order to be eligible for submission for the post-2014 research excellence framework. Given the double-whammy of easier depositing and REF urgency, WestminsterResearch saw self-deposits rocket from less than one per cent to more than 99 per cent while practice-based/non text-based entries mushroomed by 246 per cent.

‘The Haplo repository and REF open access mandate came at a similar time and the combined power of both led to this massive increase in self-deposits,’ highlights Watts. 

‘The mandates really helped people to comply to open access,’ she adds. ‘And we believe that factors contributing to more practice-based research included vastly improved templates and fields for these outputs… in the past, the repository just couldn’t take this content.’

Following these results and the looming REF2021, WestminsterResearch switched to a full Haplo open source-set up in 2018, and entries have continued to rise. As Watts put it: ‘I don’t think we’d have been able to support the increase in open access deposits without this rise in self-depositing.’…”

The never-ending story | Research Information

“At the same time, the REF open access mandate had just been announced, stating journal articles and some conference proceedings had to be publicly accessible within three months of acceptance for publication in order to be eligible for submission for the post-2014 research excellence framework. Given the double-whammy of easier depositing and REF urgency, WestminsterResearch saw self-deposits rocket from less than one per cent to more than 99 per cent while practice-based/non text-based entries mushroomed by 246 per cent.

‘The Haplo repository and REF open access mandate came at a similar time and the combined power of both led to this massive increase in self-deposits,’ highlights Watts. 

‘The mandates really helped people to comply to open access,’ she adds. ‘And we believe that factors contributing to more practice-based research included vastly improved templates and fields for these outputs… in the past, the repository just couldn’t take this content.’

Following these results and the looming REF2021, WestminsterResearch switched to a full Haplo open source-set up in 2018, and entries have continued to rise. As Watts put it: ‘I don’t think we’d have been able to support the increase in open access deposits without this rise in self-depositing.’…”

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

Evolving our support for early sharing | Nature Communications

“Nature Communications encouraged rapid dissemination of results with the launch of Under Consideration in 2017. Today we take one more step by offering an integrated preprint deposition service to our authors as part of the submission process….

From today, our authors have the option to take advantage of In Review, a free preprint deposition service integrated with the submission process to our journal. The preprint of the author’s original submission will be posted (with a permanent DOI, under a CC-BY licence) on the multidisciplinary platform hosted by our partner Research Square at the same time as the submission is being considered by our editorial team….”

Why You Should Self-Archive and How to Do It | Blog of the APA

“First, self-archiving your AMs is good for philosophy. It makes it possible for researchers without journal subscriptions to access your work quickly and easily, which in turn helps them to make their own contributions to the field. For example, if there’s a paywalled article that I’m interested in, I’ll search for it in online repositories or check out the author’s website. If a self-archived AM is available, I can download it instantly and start reading and making connections with my own work. If no self-archived AM is available, then I email the author to see if they are willing to send me a copy. Sometimes the author is kind enough to send me their paper quickly, but other times my email goes unanswered and I never get to read the paper. This can slow down my progress on a project; I often need to email multiple philosophers who haven’t self-archived their papers. Some might say that the solution to this problem is to use Sci-Hub, but Sci-Hub distributes journal articles illegally and is allegedly involved in cybercrimes.

Second, self-archiving your AMs is good for you. It enables more people to engage with and cite your work and so can help you become well-known in your field. For example, if your paper’s title and abstract sound relevant to my work and I’m able to download your self-archived AM, then I can read it in full and potentially discuss your arguments in detail in my own paper. If you haven’t self-archived your AM, I might instead decide to discuss and cite ideas from a different paper that has been self-archived. Studies confirm that papers that are self-archived can have a significant boost in citations compared with papers that are not….”

Personal open access report with one click – SNF

Which of my scientific publications are openly accessible? As of now, researchers in Switzerland can find the answer to this question by using the “SNSF Open Access Check” web application. This prototype searches articles that have been published since 2015.

Toward Easy Deposit: Lowering the Barriers of Green Open Access with Data Integration and Automation

Abstract:  This article describes the design and development of an interoperable application that supports green open access with long-term sustainability and improved user experience of article deposit. The lack of library resources and the unfriendly repository user interface are two significant barriers that hinder green open access. Tasked to implement the open access mandate, librarians at an American research university developed a comprehensive system called Easy Deposit 2 to automate the support workflow of green open access. Easy Deposit 2 is a web application that is able to harvest new publications, to source manuscripts on behalf of the library, and to facilitate self-archiving to a university’s institutional repository. The article deposit rate increased from 7.40% to 25.60% with the launch of Easy Deposit 2. The results show that a computer system can implement routine tasks to support green open access with success. Recent developments in digital repository provide new opportunities for innovation, such as Easy Deposit 2, in supporting open access. Academic librarians are vital in promoting “openness” in scholarly communication, such as transparency and diversity in the sharing of publication data.