1. Repository Tools for Managers Policies
__________
Pauline Simpson
IODE Group of Experts on Marine Information Management
CCMI, Cayman Islands
Development and Management of
e-Repositories
08-12 April 2013
IODE Project Office
Oostende, Belgium

2. Learning Outcome At the end of this session you will be able to:
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Learning Outcome
At the end of this session you will be able to:
Identify where we are now in the Open Access landscape in relation to mandates and publication policies.
Reflect upon the necessary policies for successfully running an institutional repository.
Write such a policy document.

3. Outline Open Access Policies Repository Policies Declarations Mandates
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Outline
Open Access Policies
Declarations
Mandates
Publication Policies
Repository Policies

4. Hands up if your organization has a mandate?
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Question
Hands up if your organization has a mandate?
Hands up if your organization has a publications policy?

5. Declarations, Mandates & Policies
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Declarations, Mandates & Policies
Does it matter what we call it? For this session:
Declarations – overarching call for Open Access
Mandates – OA requirement by funders
Publication Policies – encourage, request,
required by individual organizations
Repository Policies – required to setup and
run an institutional repository

6. Declarations supporting Open Access Open Access Directory: http://oad
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

7. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Declarations supporting Open Access Open Access Directory:

8. Global movement
Germany, Australia, Portugal, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Africa, Russia ...
USA
Research Works Act[HR3699] 2011 – prohibit OA mandates for publicly funded research – severely affect scientific data also – introduced but not pushed
White House Directive (Mar 2013): Federal Agencies to develop OA policies in the next 6 months
European Commission
Neelie Kroes - €80M Research to be made OA
OpenAIRE and OpenAIREPlus (data)

9. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

10. Horizon 2020 (FP for Research & Innovation)
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

11. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

12. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

13. European Research Area
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
European Research Area

14. UK Moves UK leadership in OA – still?
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
UK Moves
UK leadership in OA – still?
Finch Report, Jun Open Access is the future of Academic Publishing
[cost to UK Govt £38 million per annum in APC]
David Willetts (Min for Univ & Science) Parliamentary speech –
‘UK will lead the world’

15. RCUK (Research Councils UK)
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Revised
Authors are free to choose Green or Gold
Green option now an unmonitored,
unverified, open-ended delay of 24
months or more.
STEM research

16. But HEFCE (Research Assessment for Funding)
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
.. the proposed new HEFCE/REF mandate has offered the remedy: To be eligible for REF, all articles need to be deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication (regardless of whether the journal is subscription or Gold, and regardless of whether the deposit is embargoed or unembargoed).
The story continues …..

17. ‘Firsts’
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
The first sub institutional policy to have any real effect was the mandatory one adopted by the School of Electronics & Computer Science at the University of Southampton, UK, in This required authors in that School to place their postprints (the authors’ final version of their peer-reviewed articles) in the School’s repository.
Research funders, too, have been introducing policies over the past 5 years or so. The first was the Wellcome Trust, a London-based funder of biomedical research worldwide. It adopted its policy in 2005, quickly followed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US.
As well as institutional and funder policies, there has been some development of policy at national level. The first national policy was in the Ukraine in 2007.

18. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

19. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
cumulative

20. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

21. ROARMAP: registry of OA Mandates
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

22. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
            

23. SHERPA/Juliet – Research Funders Mandates
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

24. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact/ Beta Version
Online tool to assist with mandate compliance
International mandates expected to be added

25. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Exercise
Identify what Funders or Organizations in your country have OA Mandates/Publication Policies?

26. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

27. Effectiveness of Policies
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Effectiveness of Policies
The best-filling repositories have mandates
But mandates alone are not the answer
Good policies are partially successful
All policies need institutional back-up
There is an institutional cost

28. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

29. Institutional Publication Policies
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Target advocacy activities to Senior Management with the aim of:
obtaining high-level support for a publication policy
implementing mandates to deposit full text (refer to institutions, funding bodies with mandates in place)
implementing rewards / incentives to deposit (refer to those organisations with incentives in place)

30. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

31. University of Glasgow Publications Policy
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
University of Glasgow Publications Policy

32. Repository Policies Operational requirements of the repository
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Repository Policies
Operational requirements of the repository
Defined at implementation
Re-defined post pilot
Published policy on who, what, how ___________
1. Overarching document eg. OceanDocs
2. Policies linked on the interface as guidance on who, what, how

33. Behind the Policy Document
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Decisions made during Implementation:
WHO CAN DEPOSIT
CONTENT
Scope
Type
Full text vs Metadata
METADATA – rich or simple
FILE FORMATS
ACCESS & REUSE
PRESERVATION
COPYRIGHT AND WITHDRAWAL

34. OceanDocs Repository Policy Document
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

35. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Repository Interface

36. Institutional webpage
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Institutional webpage

37. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

38. Repository Policy Templates
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Repository Policy Templates
Six areas of policy making:
content coverage
metadata
submission of data (ingest)
access and reuse of data
preservation of data,
withdrawal of data and succession plans
7. ( Data (sets) policy )

39. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

40. Content Repository type Types of document and dataset held Versions
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Repository type
Types of document and dataset held
Versions
Principal Languages

41. Content Type of material:
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Type of material:
Southampton : Will accept any material that relates to research output in any format including multimedia.
Include journal articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, monographs, PhD Theses and unpublished research, technical and research reports, datasets.
Research papers may include: (a) unpublished pre-prints (not peer-reviewed) (b) final peer-reviewed drafts (post-prints) (c) published versions. (see Copyright Session)
Only research? – institutional requirement may be for administration documents – committee minutes etc – will your repository be used for digital content management?

42. Metadata
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

43. Submission /Deposit of Data
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Supported by a
‘How to Deposit’ Guide
Copyright Session

44. Access and Re-Use of Data
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

45. Preservation of Data
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

46. Preservation – file formats in policy?
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
OCEANDOCS

47. Withdrawal of Data
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

48. Policies for Research Data
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013

49. Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Sources
Acknowledgement for some slide content: Alma Swan; Repository Support Project; RDMRose Project;
A. Green, S. Macdonald, & R. Rise (2009). Policy-Making for Research Data in Repositories: A Guide (Version 1.2). Edinburgh: EDINA and University Data Library. Available:

50. Learning Outcome At the end of this session you will be able to:
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
Learning Outcome
At the end of this session you will be able to:
Identify where we are now in the Open Access landscape in relation to mandates and publication policies.
Reflect upon the necessary policies for successfully running an institutional repository.
Write such a policy document.

51. Print your final policy document
Development & Management of e-Repositories 2013
EXERCISE
Work through the OpenDOAR Policies Tool and select the options you would like to implement for each of the section.
Print your final policy document

52. OceanTeacher Academy