Getting an Octopus into a String Bag The complexity of communicating with the research community across a higher education institution Dr Danny Kingsley Research 2 Reader 15 February 2016

The OA policy landscape Three sets of rules in the UK. They are all different.

The MEANS and the TIMING all conflict RCUK – Green & Gold | HEFCE – Green only | COAF – Gold only

In place since 2011

The principles might be common…

What the researcher hears From Bill Hubbard Getting the rights right: when policies collide

First let’s talk some numbers The numbers are huge

Cambridge research

HEFCE potentially requires us to collect ALL papers Don’t know how many we need to aim for… Cambridge published approximately 8,000 articles and reviews in 2015 We received 3,370 articles in 2015

Academia is tribal ‘Invisible colleges’ relate to the community people have with their discipline – this is NOT their institution

Disciplinary Tribes

And they have no time Study in Cambridge of researchers showed they have about 20 minutes to devote to anything – ‘What does a researcher do all day?’ There are very few points in the publishing process where the researcher intersects with the institution – Publishing Experience Maps

This is Cambridge’s structure

One School There isn’t room on this slide for the three Institutes that are also associated with this School…

A whole other tribal system

And then there is the administration You Tube Cambridge in Numbers MsM MsM

Ironic – where academic independence is sacred

Bloody hell Confusing and complicated policy landscape Academics hostile towards being told what to do A huge and unconnected institution

How we cut through the noise

Since October

Upload your accepted manuscript – and tell us a bit about it

Huge engagement programme

Constant Newsletter sign up: Blog:

Postcards & banners All promotional materials can be downloaded from

We will do ANYTHING! signatures sent to all departmental administrators and librarians Drop-in sessions across campus Resorting to bribery!

So, how are we doing? Depends on how you look at it

As at 5 th Feb 2016

But lots of our research is OA About 56% of all eligible research available – Springer Compact – all publications OA – arXiv.org – developing compliance – Considerable no. works published OA Other projects – Unlocking Theses programme – Academic-led publishing programme

Academics uninterested In papers published in Nature, Science, Cell, The Lancet and PNAS 33% of these papers were already HEFCE compliant Of the remaining non-compliant papers we contacted 47 authors, made them aware of the HEFCE open access policy, and invited them to submit their accepted manuscript to the Open Access Service. Less than 40% of contacted authors sent their accepted manuscript. Therefore, even after direct intervention only 49% papers were HEFCE compliant Could the HEFCE policy be a Trojan Horse for gold OA?

Confusing communications Submitting a publication to the repository are different to submissions of publications to ResearchFish at the end of a grant – Research Operations Office run grants – Office of Scholarly Communications runs Open Access – Research Data Facility runs Research Data Management – Research Strategy Office runs the REF return

Last ditch? Pushing to have a staff member employed for a year to find out: – Who is saying what to researchers – How they are saying it – When they are saying it We need to have joined up communications that use the correct language, are timely and helpful

There are no guarantees in this game Dr Danny Kingsley Head of Scholarly Communication Cambridge University libraries