Thursday 23rd of June
Piratepad writeup contributors: Bram Luyten (http://www.atmire.com)

Summaries
http://intechweb.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/oai7-open-access-advocacy-session-conversation-emerging-trends-integration/

Programme
The Open Access conversation - more than just advocating for a mandate
Monica Hammes - University of Pretoria
https://custom.cvent.com/2BB8DBF08EDE4E55A49612DC887D3A3E/files/bd38b10fb11b4412ba15a5752d704c47.pdf
 
University  of Glasgow, UK, advocacy through embedding: integrating repositories and research management systems
William Nixon - University of Glasgow
http://twitter.com/#!/williamjnixon

SPARC, Washington DC, advocacy at the national and international level
Heather Joseph - SPARC
http://www.arl.org/sparc/about/staff/joseph.shtml

Panel Discussion

Monica Hammes - The Open Access Conversation is more than just advocating for a mandate

It's odd that research management doesn't seem to be able to realize the inevitability of Open Access.

Analogy with facebook & twitter: why do people flock on there, while it's so hard to convince them to use their institutional repository (DSpace, Eprints).

Mandate = holy grail of open access?
Embark on an entire mandate seeking experience. But mandate is only a small part of the whole advocacy process.

Advocacy is meant to address a great deal of different stakeholders. Lots of different agendas. As an advocate, you need to understand all of these agendas and address them.

Popular starting point: the Institutional Repository. Convince people to take part. 

Other starting point: starting from scholarly communication. Why spending so much money on stuff that we gave away to publishers in the first place?

Other starting point: Open Access. The idea of making research openly available resonates with others agendas.

You have to have a repository with modern functionalities

You need to follow the OA debate, not only sticking to the green route, but following up on all things that are evolving and happening.

Good mandate requires
The Harvard Variation - http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/366-guid.html

Now told as "the real" policy to have. University license says up front what the relation between university, author and piece of work is. Standardizes many things. We can't wait for the researchers to make their own amendments to contracts. Just impose an institutional one.
Harvard approach has many advantages

Do we need mandates?
...

Additional advantages
Researchers become more comfortable with the OA idea. They no longer feel threatened by the publishers. Example from Brazil: publishers have done so much for us, why should or could we challenge them?

Many people would not be undertaking their OA plans, without first seeing what has been accomplished at Pretoria and other institutions.

Example: telling a child to brush its teeth over and over again, until it becomes a habit/day to day practice. 

A place of many agendas
2 advocacy definitions
6 Critical success factors for a mandate
1. Create good value propositions for all stakeholders that will address their concept of value and their concerns over time
2. You repository should be more than a place for storage
3. Mandate implementation should be well resourced
4. The advocacy/marketing/outreach/publicity/lobbying continuum is a never-ending selling job
5. Time and timing is crucial
6. Stay in touch with new developments in Scholarly communication


Winning the hearts and minds of researchers
Concerns becoming barriers
Lack of awareness and correct information
Self archiving infringes copyright and is teherefor illegal
Jeopardise publishing in certain journals and/or disrupt existing relationships with publishers
Time consuming & low priority
The don't think that OA and peer review and high impact goes together
The missing postprints
Interferes with traditional practices of scholars/researchers

What IR's offer is not perceived to be useful, and what is perceived to be useful is not offered by IRs

How to approach RESEARCHERS
Conversations: examples from the field

An important publich figure publicly stated "This looks good - I hope it can help me manage all of my writings". And from this case, a nice profile/advocacy case was created

Another converstation: I see no benefits from having my work in yet another repository especialy when it is unedited and unfinished. At an under-resourced U like this, there are better things to do than follow this ideological crusade.



Best way to reach the target audience is not always to target them DIRECTLY, but just flood the channels of information indirectly around them

Journal Editor example: OA will ensure taht everyone has access to our writings. OA is the answer for my journal and more exposure to our articles via the IR will make it even better.

Getting Management on Board
Whatever advances visibitilty and reputation of unviersity
- Showcasing research
- complete record
...
Better research use, monitoring and management
ROI
Whatever keeps researchers happy


Concerns from Management
Lack of awareness and proper understanding of the issues
more pressing challenges: student throughput for example (getting students get their degrees as efficiently as possible)
Legal issues, copyright
Cost and sustainability of OA programme

OA is a little bit lower down on the agenda, we need to take care about this

How to approach MANAGEMENT
Conversations
"the cat herder": This harvard mandate does not impress me - it's only for the Humanities. What's good for Ray Frost and QUT is surely good enough for us.

Audit of the library by Tom Cochrane (someone closer to her expertise). Tom's more believable etc. This DID convince the cat herder

The senior manager: Let's get on with it and let me help with the writing on the policy. 

The research manager
The Library is fantastic
Here's a real solution to the management of research reporting for government. Let's get this formalized.

What researchers value: A bigger share for readers
Level playing field for researchers worldwide
A service that blends with other workflows
Value-added services


Concerns for Readers
Lack of awareness
Limited content
Limited functionality
Material that can be trusted
Version clarity, ets

How to approach READERS 
(important stakeholders as well!)
An IR that goes beyond access and preservation
Engage studetns - the new generation of authors
Web sites, flyers, posters, post cards, bookmarks, buttons, e-mail campaigns, multimedia
Events, competitions and other fun things
General press to make the public aware

Carrots and Sticks
Universities just do not have the ability to coerce their faculty, nor would it be advisable to try.
BUT
Liege University: CVs for evaluation of staff for promotion/grant application based on items in ORBi. Same case for QUT
University of Zurich: Annual reposts of university based on Zora
Reminders
Did you do itin your backyard over the christmas holidays?
If you buy into publish or perish ...

Intersection of agendas, good timing trust (the UP experience)
People only get money for publishing in certain journals. Library created a list illustrating for which journals they would get funding. Researchers didn't have to go out there and find out for themselves.

A never ending selling job: Advocacy
Change is inevitable: University, research, OA, IRs, SC
Enthusiasm is contagious
Unified message and coherent strategy
Be well infomed and stay cool
Time and timing is crucial

VALUE ADDS UP: if you put it all together it speaks to a lot of people and is very powerful.

Questions: 

1. There is a problem with the term mandate (very legal, something you have to do sets up the block). Should we move away from this into something more like shareholders, investors, stakeholders... - Answer: Yes, shifting into policy could be a good step

2. Can you give some more information about your UP Scorecard?

We have an open scholarship unit. Looking at how many items in the repository. Looking at percentage of the institutions output that was captured in the repository. Scorecard is campus wide. Not a tool for judging/rating individual achievements.

3. It would be wonderful if the UP rector could write up his experience with OA. 

University  of Glasgow, UK, advocacy through embedding: integrating repositories and research management systems
William Nixon - University of Glasgow
Enlighten Service Development Manager

On a crusade to get rid of the word "repository" from the documentation. Enlighten is a great brand. Benefits of losing the word repository there.

A will be talking a lot about relationships and conversations with people

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/
41,000+ records (about 10% of full text?)

"Mandate" listed as a "publication policy"

the Research System custom built with 100% compliance rate

Cradle to grave in submitting your grants, people, finance, ..
What it DOESN'T do: recording publication data.
This was an anopportunity to be complimentary with each other (research system and repository)


Shift in the landscape in terms of integration between CRIS systems and repositories. Example of deposit happening in CRIS, and exporting to repository.
In enlighten: deposit still happens in the repository. 

Star graph with research system in the middle. Other sources of information control their own info, and export it to the research system. 

JISC funded project on embedded repositories - relationships with research information systems and repositories, learning services

JISC take-up and embedding: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/reptakeup.aspx

The "SILO" approach for a repository doesn't work.

Only advocacy doesn't work. We need to be embeded.Repository  is connected to the research system, will be used for REF 2014, feeds are embeded into publication pages,  there is a twitter feed, etc. 

LDAP and single signon reduces barriers. Absolutely important in lowering the threshold. ld. NO account creation enforcing for the users.

Our embedded journey
Capturing non traditional information into the repository - demonstrating the impact

Embedding (and integrating) is about
Re-use, re-use, re-use: the more it's used the more value there is.

We need to take responsibilities for managing our own publications. 

Repositories and Research Systems
It's about partnerships, relations and conversations

People: partnerships
Academic staff
Departmental administrators
University Librariy
IT Services
Corporate Communications
Human resources
Archives

Author disambiguation slide. Linking publications to individual users. Canonical names vs publication names. All linked to staff identifier: completely agnostic about variations of the name. Another link to ORCID, linking this all together.
Pushing information back to the authors - this engages the academics

A lot of work with U web management team

Static way, static lists ... Web team was very much on board to improve this.

A lot of this about reputation of researchers and ownership

Linking outputs to Awards
previously: some free text fields for publication output etc
Now: taking an XML feed of all output activities, search & selecting what project publications are linked to.

Browse by research funder is the result of this linking.
There is an additional funder and project information - project code, award no, project name, principal investigator, etc, there will be also possibility to see the project


University publications policy - june 2008 (e.g. the "mandate" but not named like that)
http://www.lib.gla.ac.uk/enlighten/publicationspolicy/

Objectives
To increase the visibility of researh publications produced by staff employed by or associated by the university of glasgow.
To ensure that research oututs are prepared and curated in a way which helps maximise visibility...

A lot of advocacy, started with encouraging deposit. VP for Research was very supportive and suggested the mandate. U Senate approved the policy. 
Copyright related statement: where copyright permits (not the Harvard approach)


Really interesting impact. 

Research Excellence Framework 2014
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/

National assesment excercise, academics needs to provide publications details for assessments

REF and MiniREF (oct-dec 2010)
REF 2014
internal exercise
enlighten being used as the platform to carry out this exercise
Using modified version of the RAE add-on software developed by southampton for the RAE 2008.
Has significantly increased staff engagement with the repository - which is continued beyond excercise

MiniREF in figures
Over 1200 colleagues returned data
Exercise ran just over 4 weeks
More than 4000 additional records added during this exercise
700+ email enquiries
4083 selections made (3085 articles)



Key success factors for Enlighten and the MiniREF
http://www.gla.ac.uk/colleges/scienceengineering/information/staff/research/mini-refexercise/

Comprehensive coverage
SSO (GUID) in place
Additional functionality for selecting records (IRRA)
Impact and Esteem data
Reporting options (Word and Excel)
Devolved REF Administrators
Staff "impersonation" options - research office was doing this on behalf of researchers ( delegated submissions)

We have also asked for impact and esteem data (fellowships, lectures, etc)


Lessons learned
mini REF interesting exercise on advocacy: Repository at the VERY CENTER of this effort

Further embedding
CERIFY Project http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/projects/cerify.aspx
IRIOS project http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/projects/irios.aspx

Our Lessons:
A full text mantra for Enlightenment - 4R's
Remind
Reignite
Reassure
Reiterate
Result
(by Morag Greig)

http://researchoutcomes.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/enlightenpapers

Questions

1. What about leading universities without repositories? Cape town proud of rankings, but institution is now waking up.The approach in UCT is using the CMS for harvesting publications - what is your opinion on this? No library driver. Being pretty passive on the issue.

Answer: What you're building is probably very close to a repository. Encouragement to be involved as library staff. Some of the GLA work comes from library first. The more people involved the better & see how library can provide support.

SPARC, Washington DC, advocacy at the national and international level
Heather Joseph - SPARC
http://www.arl.org/sparc/about/staff/joseph.shtml

SPARC mission - a Catalyst for action

Library membership organization. Expand the dissemination of research and scholarship in a way that leverages digital, networked technology, reduces financial pressures on libraries, and creates a more open system of scholarly communication. (pretty small task ?)

Real champions of open access as end goal.

Looking for pressure points in the scholarly communication marketplace. 

Free availability
read, download, copy, distribute, print, search/link, crawl ... for any LAWFUL purpose
coupled with the right to use
(BOAI definition)

Three program areas
Educate stakeholders on opportunities for change in scholarly communication system.
Incubate demonstrations of business publishing models that advance positive change in the system.
Advocate for policies that create an environment where a more open system of scholarly communication can flourish

Creating open acces as a new norm. Not the friendly alternative, left-wing option, ...

We want to change the game

All Politics is Local 

... And this is our backyard (washington DC)

Although everything action is localized, there is an ultimate end goal to influence the highest decision makers.

8 billion per year (STM publishing market)
The stakes are very high. 

not diametrically opposed but it puts SPARC in opposition to the big players in some discussions.

The biggest challenges of advocacy is to be present at the place where decisions are made

SPARC = getting a seat at the table, being present when discussions are happening. Influence next, but getting at the table first. We're not entitled to a seat just because we want to be there. We have to bring something to the table (big representation, other value)

New language
Finding a way to convince people,  

Agenda for policy makers can't be approached by merely complaining about the current situation

"Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available... And by doing so, they would maximise social return on public investment."

job creation
innovation
competitiveness
----> those are the things that policy makers care about

Bottomline is really the bottomline for policy makers (money, money, money)

4 principles of taxpayer access

1. American taxpayers are entitle to open access on the Internet to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on research funded by the U.S. Government
2. Widespread access to the information contained in these articles is an essential, inseparable compontent of our nations' investment in science. 
3. This information should be shared in cost-effective ways that take advantage of the Internet, stimulate further discovery and innovation, and advance the translation of this knowledge into public benefits.
4. Enhanced access to information will lead to usage by millions of individuals, scientists, and professionals, and will deliver an accellerated return on the taxpayer's investments

Critical mass

Alliance for taxpayer access - http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/

A Clear Ask

2 years of work to get a few sentences in the law (NIH policy).
To insert "herewith" took another 8 months ;)

A similar work was going on in the UK and Canada, there was a shared wording. 

No one wants to be left behind. 

Results
NIH policy enacted into US law april 2008
Over 2.2 million full text articles now available via pubmed central
Nearly 500,000 unique users per day
99% articles downloaded at least once
25% U users, 40% citizens, 17% companies, remainder governments or others

More Results
NIH language serves as basis for sustained U.S. national advocacy on multiple fronts
proposed legislation S.1737 The Federal Research Public Access Act 2010
Proposed action by other Departments and Agencies
White House Request for Public Informatin and Interagency Working Group

Similar successes - Canadian Institue of Healther Research, RCUK Biomedical Council Public Access Policy

Keeping an eye on closely related communities - OERs, Open Data

Emerging Approaches
Deposit
Permissions - OERs
Management policy approach - Open Data


Permissions Approach
US Deps ed & labour: 500 million program (of eventual 2 billion) creation of OERs
Condition of grant that all materials created as a result should be available to public under a CC-BY license
All materials-training materials, curricula, ... created as result of funding are openly accessible to public

Management Approach
Investigators who apply for NSF funding must now include explicit plan for management and sharing of digital data in proposals
"Softer" approach - designed to facilitate cultural change

Emerging trends

Set the default to open
Recognition that maximizing access maximizes benefits
Level of awareness of policy makers growing
National discussions growing in frequency; OA, open data, and OERs increasingly included in the policy discussions.
Increased emphasis on condition funding - trend of "Open Grant Making"

Opportunities
National Advocacy efforts are (very!) loosely coordinated
Demonstrated effectiveness of consistent message. 
Structures and networks in place to facilitate an explicit, sustained effort to help coordinate international advocacy

We could be more effective in the community, coordinating INTERNATIONAL advocacy.

Questions
Question: <<???>>

Answer: A lot of the new techniques (datamining etc) can not be used on the pubmed central database. Shorten the timespan of embargo & going to full CC-BY license afterwards.

Comments from David Prosser:
- We have the best arguments
- We are right! :)
- Arguments against open access were clearly wrong. OA Journals didn't undermine peer review. The models are NOT unsustainable. People outside of academia DIDN'T have full access. Green OA & selfs deposit didn't undermine traditional publishing.
- Kinds of presentations are totally different compared to 8 years ago.
- Prime ministers: not a matter of whether we move to open access, but WHEN moving to open access.
http://piratepad.net/ep/pad/export/ro.riRZ9QHCmuTFGt/latest?format=html
piratepad.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-05
31023
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:6GEMJ6Y3UDBFBNADRGTDYEECFKRDF3CT
<urn:uuid:a42a1356-85f7-4bab-b630-3ef72d3b86e6>
2018-01-18T13:54:36Z
194.14.56.211
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:JAQQZEGYRPCKYTPWI6IFOT7FT6VGIQFU
<urn:uuid:583250c3-68ed-4e09-aacd-e32645d56293>
http://piratepad.net/ep/pad/export/ro.riRZ9QHCmuTFGt/latest?format=html
response
<urn:uuid:fb388b22-1d48-449a-8d9f-2c7856a5c509>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-56-52.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-05
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf