Integrating ORCID iDs into repositories: two tips

  Emails keep arriving these days from colleagues in different countries asking about the steps to follow in order to integrate ORCID identifiers into their institutional repositories. My regular answer to them is two-fold: “please make sure you have all your institutional ORCID iDs available before moving onto the integration process” and “please be patient and wait for a standard for technical integration to arrive from institutions already working on this area”. While the first recommendation seems quite straightforward, I am often asked to explain why I'm suggesting people to wait a bit instead of encouraging them to go ahead with their technical work. So here's the explanation:

The questions I am regularly collecting will usually deal with the best way to code the ORCID iD into a repository metadata set (usually for DSpace). Colleagues accurately guess the ORCID iD will need to be linked to the author's name, but the ways they propose to actually do this are not always identical. This would be no major issue if the objective were just featuring the ORCID iDs as an additional piece of data in the repository items, but ORCID is able to offer much more than this repository-based functionality to institutions and their scholars. The real objective of the ORCID iD integration into repositories is achieving interoperability with the ORCID profiles for researchers, enabling a two-way syncing between both systems that will allow publications hosted in the repository to be automatically displayed on the author's ORCID profile and vice-versa. This way, researchers will be spared the tedious work of manually updating their “low-profile” publications (those which won't be automatically retrieved from Scopus, the WoS or CrossRef) by having them automatically delivered by the repository, where Open Access to the full-text will usually be offered from on top of that.

In order to design and implement an effective ORCID-repository handshake, there should ideally be oneintegration standard for each main repository platform, and this should be delivered by the repository platforms themselves – same way as if we're expecting to collect a feature to integrate ORCID iDs into Open Journal System, we would expect it to be delivered by PKP, not single institutions working independently from the system provider. This will make things much easier for ORCID – who will need to technically support just one integration process per platform and version – and also for institutions, who will be able to benefit from a tested integration mechanism already validated by colleagues at pioneering HEIs.

There is an ongoing effort in this regard since a few months ago as a result of the funding provided by the Sloan Foundation to a set ofORCID integration projects in the US, some of which are dealing with the integration of ORCID iDs into DSpace repositories. As stated in the post, "grantees (...) will share a demo of their prototype integration at the Spring 2014 ORCID Outreach Meeting to be held in Chicago on May 21-22". It's then a matter of three months to have the technical means freely available for integrating ORCID iDs into repositories in a harmonised way. When replied from the most innovative colleagues that three months is a long time, I suggest them to directly contact the University of Missouri MOSpaceRepository Team for more info – and especially to try to make sure they'll have all their ORCID iDs ready when the technical solution becomes available.

An attempt to provide new services to the repository network in the UK: the UK RepositoryNet+ Project

  A while ago I was asked to write a brief note on the RepNet project for a the 'ThinkEPI Notes', a Spanish series of short updates on recent developments on the area of libraries and technology. Since it's a rather long text with a significant number of hyperlinks in it, I have chosen to offer it online from this blog as well so that readers may find it easier to read than via a message in a mail list. The text below is in Spanish as a result – but I shall try to provide an English translation as soon as I'm able to.

Un ensayo para el desarrollo de servicios para repositorios en el Reino Unido: el proyecto UK RepositoryNet+

El texto de esta nota está también disponible en la web de ThinkEPI.

Después de la ya tardía Declaracion de la Alhambra (mayo 2010), continúan llegando en estos días desde España noticias sobre nuevas declaraciones en apoyo del acceso abierto a nivel institucional. Aunque no completamente desprovistas de utilidad –especialmente si redundan en una mejor dotación de medios técnicos y humanos para los equipos que tratan de implantar los objetivos citados en dichos textos– estas declaraciones carecen de sentido si se limitan a ser meras expresiones de apoyo a una iniciativa próxima a cumplir diez años desde su lanzamiento [1]. Una vez que como fruto del trabajo de muchos profesionales en las bibliotecas universitarias y de centros de investigación de todo el mundo se ha alcanzado un grado de consolidación de la red de repositorios de acceso abierto que no admite vuelta atrás, el siguiente paso es aventurarse en el desarrollo de servicios sobre esa capa de infraestructura que atiendan a las necesidades de académicos e investigadores y de sus instituciones. Este es el espíritu que ha guiado el devenir del proyecto UK RepositoryNet+ en el Reino Unido [2], que se autodefine como "una iniciativa para la creación de una infraestructura socio-técnica que soporte el depósito, la curación y la difusión en acceso abierto de la literatura de investigación".

Mucho se ha hablado en este último año de la "errónea apuesta del Gobierno Británico por un modelo insostenible de acceso abierto 'dorado' (Gold Open Access) financiado mediante cuotas por procesamiento de artículos detraídas de los magros presupuestos disponibles para la investigación". Sin pretender que dicha afirmación sea completamente errónea, es preciso tener también en cuenta la cuantiosa inversión (con cifras de siete dígitos en libras esterlinas) realizada simultáneamente en una investigación sobre las vías de consolidación de la ruta verde y los repositorios de acceso abierto sin parangón en Europa [3] a través de este proyecto RepNet, apenas mencionado por contra en las acaloradas discusiones "Gold vs Green" que vienen teniendo lugar desde hace algún tiempo en las listas de distribucion de la disciplina.

Esto se debe principalmente al hecho de que, frente a la simplicidad de una política de acceso abierto concreta que es fácil juzgar y aprobar o condenar, el análisis de un proyecto tan complejo como RepNet requiere un conocimiento profundo de los retos técnicos que plantean los diferentes servicios para repositorios y de los enfoques adoptados para resolverlos por los equipos encargados de su desarrollo. De esta manera, aunque prácticamente ausente de las –frecuentemente bizantinas– discusiones entre los abogados del acceso abierto, RepNet ha sido por el contrario muy comentado y debatido por la comunidad de 'repository managers' en el Reino Unido, que es la encargada de implantar las a menudo cambiantes, cuando no contradictorias, políticas emanadas desde las distintas instancias administrativas a nivel institucional, regional o nacional.

Tal como se presenta en la página principal del proyecto, el desarrollo de servicios sobre la capa de repositorios se sustenta sobre un análisis previo de las necesidades de los diferentes actores implicados (instituciones, agencias de financiación, investigadores...) y sobre la definición de una serie de áreas de trabajo en las cuales es perentorio proporcionar nuevas funcionalidades para garantizar la continuidad de los repositorios de acceso abierto en un momento en el que las exigencias para cumplir con los requisitos de aportación de información científica que plantea el Research Excellence Framework (REF) –el ejercicio de evaluación científica que se llevará a cabo en el Reino Unido en 2014– hacen que muchas instituciones hayan optado por adquirir e implantar sistemas CRIS que a menudo amenazan con reemplazar a los repositorios de acceso abierto, pese a basarse en un enfoque mucho más centrado en la gestión de información científica que en el acceso abierto como tal [4].

Las áreas de actividad de RepNet a nivel de identificación, diseño, desarrollo e implantación de servicios para repositorios son las siguientes:

1. Agregación de Contenidos. En este ámbito, RepNet propone la construcción de un agregador de contenidos de toda la red de repositorios del país. A diferencia de muchos otros países en los que esta funcionalidad existe desde hace tiempo, en el Reino Unido no se ha consolidado ninguna de las diferentes iniciativas que han desarrollado prototipos para la agregación de contenidos. Esta desventaja a nivel de infraestructura tiene la contrapartida de que una plataforma contruida en este momento puede ofrecer funcionalidades mucho más avanzadas que las que poseen las plataformas desarrolladas con anterioridad, tales como la minería de datos sobre los textos completos de los documentos archivados con asignación automática de descriptores, la detección e integración de duplicados a partir de una estrategia similar de análisis del texto completo de los contenidos y la detección de registros metadata-only (sin texto completo asociado) incluso aunque contengan un archivo PDF por defecto o 'default dummy file' para indicar que el texto completo no está disponible. Teniendo en cuenta que la adopción de las directrices DRIVER ha sido muy escasa en el Reino Unido (lo que ha llevado a su vez a niveles de cumplimiento inusitadamente bajos de los estándares de OpenAIRE), una agregación puede ofrecer una novedosa funcionalidad de validación de esquemas de metadatos, aplicando criterios muy avanzados como los de detección de las versiones de los articulos archivados o la agregación de información de financiación de los trabajos.

      Workflow ITIL para la incubación de servicios en RepNet

2. Generación de Informes y Comparativa de Plataformas. En el area de 'reporting', RepNet viene operando el proyecto IRUS-UK [5] siguiendo un modelo común de incubación de servicios externalizados de acuerdo con la metodología ITIL [6]. IRUS-UK es un proyecto desarrollado en el Centro de Datos MIMAS de la Universidad de Manchester para recolectar estadísticas de uso de múltiples repositorios armonizadas de acuerdo con el estándar COUNTER. A mediados de septiembre de 2013, IRUS-UK recoge y agrega datos de 40 repositorios institucionales –lo que supone aproximadamente un tercio de la red nacional– y continúa extendiendo su cobertura, limitada por el momento a EPrints (29) y DSpace (11) en tanto el equipo de desarrollo trabaja en el módulo de intercambio de datos para Fedora y otras plataformas. Además de permitir la comparación para diferentes plataformas y tipos de documentos, el objetivo de IRUS-UK es obtener una estimación de las estadísticas de uso agregadas para toda la red, en la confianza de que los niveles de uso globales resultarán un argumento convincente para garantizar la utilización continuada de la misma por parte de autores e instituciones.

3. Deposito Automático de Contenidos. El proyecto Repository Junction Broker (RJB) es una iniciativa desarrollada en el EDINA National Data Centre para la transferencia automatizada de contenidos a la red de repositorios a través del protocolo SWORD. Después de varios años de trabajo, el proyecto RJB se incluyó como parte de los servicios a prestar por parte de RepNet, y ha sido bajo este paraguas cuando ha comenzado a funcionar como servicio en fase piloto desde mediados de este año [7]. RJB pretende consolidar una base de proveedores de contenido, fundamentalmente a nivel de artículos de revista, que puedan ser distribuidos, bien como registros sólo de metadatos o como metadatos+texto completo, a los diversos repositorios institucionales correspondientes a las afiliaciones de los autores de cada artículo concreto. En un principio, el RJ Broker ha firmado acuerdos con el repositorio temático EuropePMC y con Nature Publishing Group para distribuir los contenidos de ambos proveedores como proyecto piloto (el primero de ellos según el modelo 'metadata-only' y el segundo transfiriendo metadata+full-text, lo que requiere el compromiso expreso por parte de los repositorios receptores de no difundir los textos completos antes de la fecha de embargo). Un aspecto clave de la operación de este servicio es su naturaleza internacional por defecto: dado que los autores de los artículos son con frecuencia internacionales, basta con que los repositorios institucionales susceptibles de recibir información esten registrados con el servicio para que automáticamente puedan recibir los contenidos (previa instalación de SWORD) con independencia del país en el que esten ubicados.

      Servicio RJB para la distribución automática de contenidos

4. Enriquecimiento de Metadatos. El area de Metadata Enhancement es posiblemente la más amplia de las que aborda el proyecto RepNet. Fruto de las investigaciones previas sobre necesidades de los diferentes ámbitos implicados, se puso de manifiesto la existencia de estrategias para la asignación de metadatos puestas en práctica por repositorios aislados (por ejemplo en el ámbito de la preservación de contenidos) que no se difundían al resto de la red. Vista la necesidad de armonizar el desarollo de toda la red al compás, se puso en marcha la iniciativa RIOXX [8] para el desarrollo e implantacion de un 'application profile' que permitiera la incorporación conjunta de metadatos sobre financiación (algo que ya abordaba OpenAIRE para los proyectos FP7), sobre aspectos específicos relativos al acceso y sobre identificadores como ORCID. Las iniciativas preliminares para la incorporación de estos metadatos avanzados a los repositorios han comenzado a difundirse recientemente [9] de modo que puedan gradualmente adoptarse de manera conjunta por parte de toda la red.

5. Registro de Repositorios. Los dos principales directorios de repositorios existentes en la actualidad, OpenDOAR y ROAR, mantenidos respectivamente por las universidades de Nottingham y Southampton, aportan una información más que aceptable sobre la red mundial de repositorios. Sin embargo, ninguno de ambos proporciona una cobertura completa de la red. Por este motivo, y también para actualizar el perfil que los directorios proporcionan sobre las plataformas que indexan, se ha puesto en marcha como parte de RepNet el proyecto Open Access Repository Registry (OARR) [10]. Este proyecto pretende actualizar la informacion de OpenDOAR cubriendo en mayor detalle las características de los repositorios, en un momento en que tanto la implantación generalizada de sistemas CRIS como el creciente numero de repositorios de datos de investigación estan introduciendo cambios significativos en el sector. El nuevo directorio, cuyo proyecto lidera el equipo CRC-SHERPA en la Universidad de Nottingham, se alojará eventualmente en los servidores de RepNet junto a otros servicios proporcionados por SHERPA tales como RoMEO, JULIET o más recientemente, FACT. De hecho, una de las líneas para el diseño de nuevos servicios para repositorios pasa por explotar las sinergias entre estas aplicaciones gestionadas de manera integrada.

6. Localización de la Información. Una de las cuestiones más problemáticas de los repositorios hace referencia a la escasa visibilidad de sus contenidos en la red. Junto a la creación de esquemas de metadatos suficientemente comprensivos que puedan servir los propósitos de la 'discoverability', la línea de trabajo orientada a la mejora de la visibilidad de los contenidos pretende sobre todo optimizar los ratios de indexación de los materiales archivados en la red de repositorios del Reino Unido por parte de motores de búsqueda como Google Scholar o Microsoft Academic Search. Sea a través de la identificación de buenas prácticas a nivel de repositorio individual o bien a través de la indexación masiva de una agregación de contenidos [11], es preciso mejorar la visibilidad de los contenidos de los repositorios en la red, así como identificar su procedencia de modo que el usuario final de la información pueda conocer y valorar la labor realizada desde estas plataformas.

7. Preservación/Continuidad de Acceso. Sin entrar directamente en el área de la preservación digital, cubierta por otros programas y proyectos del Jisc como SPRUCE [12], el proyecto RepNet sí se planteó en cambio ofrecer alguna clase de servicio para la red de repositorios en el sentido de asegurar la continuidad de acceso a los contenidos archivados en la misma. Para ello, RepNet trabaja sobre la extensión a los materiales archivados en acceso abierto del modelo LOCKSS, ya empleado con éxito para la gestión de la continuidad en el acceso a materiales obtenidos a traves de suscripción por parte de las bibliotecas [13]. Este modelo se basa en el archivo periódico de los contenidos en una red de servidores distribuidos (las 'LOCKSS Boxes') gestionada por las instituciones.

Servicios de nueva creación Además del énfasis en la integración y ulterior desarrollo de los servicios para repositorios ya existentes, el proyecto RepNet pretende también abordar el diseño, desarrollo e implantación de una serie de nuevos servicios. Para ello, RepNet adopta el modelo para la construcción de una infraestructura (de servicios) basada en datos o 'data-driven infrastructure' [14] que permita plantear la puesta en marcha de servicios de nueva creación largamente demandados por la comunidad, tales como herramientas para la monitorización del cumplimiento de mandatos de acceso abierto. La creación de nuevos servicios se lleva a cabo mediante el establecimiento de partnerships con instituciones concretas que permitan el ensayo y testeo de desarrollos piloto. Así, la iniciativa STARS [15] llevada a cabo en colaboración con la Universidad de St Andrews y el Scottish Digital Library Consortium (SDLC) se ha planteado como una prueba piloto para la implantación del conjunto de servicios que una iniciativa como RepNet puede ofrecer a una institución y un repositorio específicos.





Referencias

[1] La Declaración de Berlín, publicada por la Sociedad Max Planck en octubre de 2003, puede considerarse razonablemente como el pistoletazo de salida del movimiento del acceso abierto con la opción que ofrecía a organismos académicos y de investigación para suscribirla de manera institucional. De hecho, la Semana de Acceso Abierto se celebra anualmente en el mes de octubre como conmemoración de la publicación de esta Declaración.

[2] Proyecto UK RepositoryNet+ (comúnmente conocido como "RepNet"), http://repositorynet.ac.uk/

[3] Sólo el proyecto europeo OpenAIRE plantea un nivel de objetivos de similar amplitud y ambición a los de RepNet a nivel de servicios a desarrollar sobre la red de repositorios de acceso abierto existente en la actualidad.

[4] En relación con el impacto sobre las instituciones del ejercicio de recopilación de información científica para el REF2014, véase la excelente presentación 'I am turning enterprisey' realizada por Chris Keene ('repository manager' en la Universidad de Sussex) en la reciente conferencia Repository Fringe 2013 celebrada en Edimburgo el pasado mes de agosto.

[5] Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (IRUS-UK), http://irus.mimas.ac.uk/

[6] Ver referencia a ITIL en la sección de preguntas frecuentes de RepNet, http://www.repositorynet.ac.uk/?q=content/faq

[7] “RJ Broker delivers its first test transfers”, http://bit.ly/16dsJmq

[8] "RIOXX: Developing Repository Metadata Guidelines", http://bit.ly/18hlzQW

[9] Nixon, W.J., Ashworth, S., and McCutcheon, V. (2013) “Enlighten: Research and APC funding workflows at the University of Glasgow”. Insights: the UKSG journal, 26 (2). pp. 159-167. ISSN 2048-7754 (doi:10.1629/2048-7754.80), http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/83882/

[10] Open Access Repository Registry (OARR), http://bit.ly/LeXGjp

[11] Kenning Arlitsch, Patrick S. O'Brien, (2012) "Invisible institutional repositories: Addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google Scholar", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 30 Iss: 1 pp. 60-81, DOI: 10.1108/07378831211213210

[12] Sustainable Preservation Using Community Engagement (SPRUCE), http://bit.ly/1aXY1Vd

[13] UK LOCKSS Alliance Case Studies Now Available, http://bit.ly/18Gkw9j

[14] Informe “Preparing for Data-driven Infrastructure”, http://bit.ly/1a8SuXe

[15] Pablo de Castro, Jackie Proven, “The STARS Shared Initiative: Delivering Repository Services in an Advanced CRIS/IR Environment”. Presentación en el RepositoryFringe 2013, http://slidesha.re/1eXH2nI

Could the so-called Gold Rush result in Green reinforcement? (II)

  A post was published last December at the UKCoRR blog examining the question of whether Green Open Access could become mainstream at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as a result of the policies resulting from the Finch report and aiming to drive the scholarly communication model towards a Gold OA-based one. Buiding on the discusions held at the webinar "The Role of Institutional Repositories after the Finch Report" organised by the Repositories Support Project earlier that month, the post highlighted the role IR managers were to play in explaining the different options for policy compliance at HEIs and the relevant role deposit into institutional repositories would acquire as a result of the economic impossibility to make the whole institutional research output available via Gold Open Access.

A few months later, at a time when the RCUK Open Access policy is about to come into effect, preliminary strategies for ensuring compliance are being designed at HEIs. Driven by the RCUK policy statement that "The RCUK OA Block Grant is principally to support the payment of APCs. However, Research Organisations have the flexibility to use the block grant in the manner they consider will best deliver the RCUK Policy on Open Access, as long as the primary purpose to support the payment of APCs is fulfilled", institutions are wisely investing part of the Block Grant funding on enhancing their Green Open Access infrastructure (including human resources) and making sure their institutional repository will be ready to provide support for Open Access dissemination purposes to all researchers whose publications are not awarded Gold OA funding.

In an even more inspiring realisation of this leveraging policy, the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) released last week the requirements it will apply for authors to be eligible for Gold Open Access funding (Spanish only). With the caveat that "due to limited resources, just one article per author will be allowed per year", these include the need to deposit the author's research outputs published in the last three years into the Digital.CSIC institutional repository in three months time since the funding for the payment of APCs has been awarded.

Compliance monitorisation is becoming a key concern at HEIs as a result of these policies and attempts at having pilot systems in place for ensuring the reporting tools for policy compliance are available will shortly be carried out at pioneering institutions. In the meantime the whole move towards Gold and Green Open Access remains a daring experiment whose outcome -including the way researchers in different domains are willing to follow the policy guidelines- will be very interesting to follow in upcoming months. The Global Research Council meeting in Berlin next May 2013 will provide a good opportunity to agree on an international action plan for implementing Open Access to Publications – Open Access implementation is one of only two items on the agenda.

Preaching to the converted...

  Sometimes when you try to argue on controversial issues - say for instance you consider that the coverage of sex abuse in the media is biased and lacks objectivity - you'll be accused of not being interested in figting sex abuse. Regardless of how frequently found around the place these days, it's the sort of argumentation that will drive you mad, since its sole purpose seems to be to avoid discussing the issue itself.

Open Access is no exception in this regard. I do not think my personally being pro-Open Access or anti-Open Access should be part of the discussion here, but you may check posts below should this paragraphs raise any doubt about it. Incidentally I happen to be a physicist and have had the opportunity during my extensive Open Access dissemination activities (and have taken great pleasure in it) to discuss it with dozens of researchers from all fields, possibly hundreds of them, many of them Open Access-friendly, some of them reluctant, nearly all of them interested in a sensible dialogue on the future of scholarly communication.

As a result of these experiences, plus again lots of work for implementing OA at institutional and cross-institutional level, there are two relevant points I would like to make in this post:

1) Librarians ('shambrarians' would probably be more accurate) should refrain from going too far in telling researchers how to perform their professional activity. Librarians/shambrarians usually do not know enough about research and scholars can easily perceive that out of a five minute conversation. This is possibly the main reason for the huge divide among both communities - and the one that does actually explain why repositories are nearly empty. Underpopulated repositories is by no means just a 'keystroke issue' I'm afraid (although solving the 'keystroke issue' will help of course). Asking for strong mandates has lately become a mantra from the 'shambrarian' community, but when you listen to researchers' thoughts about this many of them are far from being convinced this is the right way to deal with Open Access implementation.

2) Open Access success is mainly a technology issue and not a policy one (or not to such extent anyway). Ideally the technology and policy strands should work in parallel, but technology can do without policy, whereas the opposite is not true. If you try to sell researchers an Open Access mandate for depositing their papers on the equivalent of a shack in architectural terms, they will very likely laugh in your face (this is the story of the last 20 years Stevan Harnad often talks about). You need to have a solid technical foundation with solid added-value services for talking researchers into Green Open Access. And that is presently far from being a fact. Regrettably far, I feel obliged to add. Not only that, it is kept far from being a possibility by the regular advocates ignoring most about technology and making emphasis on what they do know about: dialectics. I will not mention particular examples here, since it's not the goal of this post to get personal, but if Open Access is to succeed, the debate should clearly become more technical and less political.

No offence meant in any of this, I should warn. I read as much as I can of what gets published on OA, especially blogposts, and there's not too much I like out there I must say. But I do usually keep my opinions to myself since I believe there may be many different ways for OA to succeed - and fights between passionate Green OA supporters and their critical friends is certainly not one of them.

... and preaching to the non converted

  After quite a long time away from this blog due to various circumstances – with work overload probably being the most convincing one – I will try to catch up with various threads in the next day ot two – and I shall start the attempt with an answer to this request for explaining what Open Access is and what its aims are I was delivered from the interesting comments section of this “Whoops! Are Some Current Open Access Mandates Backfiring on the Intended Beneficiaries?” post by Kent Anderson at The Scholarly Kitchen blog. This is my answer – I tried to keep it as concise as possible, apologies if it may still be a bit long.


I am probably too busy trying to overcome the numerous challenges that stand in the way of Open Access implementation myself to provide a too detailed and accurate description of what Open Access is and what its aims are, but I'll give it a go. Let me start by quoting the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2002):

"The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage. For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access".

According to this, Open Access means ensuring this possibility is realised, and worldwide dissemination of research outputs should indeed be a shared goal for institutions (and its libraries) and for publishers. It means that any researcher anywhere in the world may have the opportunity for the first time in history to freely share her research results (and this includes research data) with the whole research community and beyond. Whether this is achieved through the so-called Gold route (Open Access or hybrid journals) or via Open Access repositories (the Green route) is secondary to some extent - although not of course if business models are our sole concern here.

Open Access deals with the have and the have-nots (which does not just mean developed vs developing countries, but rather privileged vs underprivileged researchers in terms of having or not an institutional coverage for accessing the research information they require for carrying out their own research). And Open Access deals with whether a freely available author's final peer-reviewed manuscript might provide a useful alternative to the much-preferable version of record for those underprivileged researchers who can't or won't afford paying the fees required to read the papers that will allow them keep up-to-date with advances in their own research area.

Research funders are well aware of the challenge, especially those in the area of biomedical research, and Open Access mandates are their attempt to tackle the access issue in an area where many institutions both in rich and poor countries lack the (quite substantial) budgets required to provide their reseachers a comprehensive access to publications in toll-access journals. What about publishers? They are indeed adapting their business models to fit the Gold route by taking Article Processing Charges from authors as a prerequisite to making research papers available Open Access so they can meet the funders' mandates – which is fine. But this adaption to Open Access has not at all improved their image in the eyes of institutions (and many researchers in them), who suspect some not-so-subtle form of double-dipping is taking place since they still need to pay for their journal subscriptions on top of the APCs.

What could publishers then do to stop the fight?

The European PEER Project was a 3-yr STM Publisher Association-lead attempt to assess the impact of Open Access repositories on the 'European Research ecosystem'. This was technically carried out by delivering a large amount of final peer-reviewed author manuscripts into a cross-European institutional Open Access repository network.

Publisher participation ensured the right research article version was deposited, and the whole exercise was also useful for them: not only they were able to become aware of the relevance of sufficient metadata (a concept that CrossRef has later extended among the wider publisher community), but also to harmonise their interoperability standards through the use of the NLM DTD. Furthermore, the conclusions of the PEER project assessment carried out by CIBER Research Ltd was that not only publishers were not harmed by Open Access repositories, but rather on the contrary the paper download figures from journal pages at publisher websites were much improved by their availability as final manuscripts at repositories (since it's the version of record any researcher will prefer to read and cite unless of course they have no means to accessing it).

PEER was a one-time exercise, but it also delivered a proof of concept for cooperation between publishers and institutions in order to provide researchers the service they require for meeting the funders' mandates they are subject to. And in fact some sensible publishers are still interested – and taking subsequent steps in this direction – in delivering their authors the deposit service they require to meet the mandates. The way these sensible publishers see it, this is a means to offer researchers competitive advantages at journal selection time and will ensure a steady number of submissions in an increasingly competitive market framework for journals.

In the meantime the institutional Open Access community (which reached a critical mass quite a long time ago) is taking steps to ensure the repository systems become fit for purpose in order to meet funder requirements in terms of offering OA to the outputs of research projects funded by them. There are indeed technical as well as cultural/political challenges, in fact quite a number of them, but there is also a sustained and persistent effort to figure out the best ways to gradually address them. Institutional Research Committees are suddenly becoming aware (and this is the concern comment #2 addresses) that institutional research publishing budgets won't reach for providing Gold Open Access via payment of APCs for the whole institutional research output, so they're instead turning their eyes to their institutional Open Access repositories and wondering whether it could be the way of meeting funder mandates in a much cheaper fashion. At the same time, some funders are starting to rule hybrid journals out of their mandates for compliance purposes on order to avid the abovementioned risk of double-dipping.

The landscape keeps hastily evolving and it seems further adaption will be required both from publishers and institutions. This could ideally happen through cooperation and not through struggle, but there seem to be too many prejudices and too little efforts out there for a constructive dialogue to take place in a sustainable way.

Steady progress of Open Access at Kenyatta University and beyond

  As shown in the Open Access trend worldmap in the previous post, Kenya may well be the country where a strongest impulse towards Open Access implementation in a coordinated, cross-institutional way is currently under way. A high number of Kenyan universities are taking steps to issue Open Access policies and to set up their institutional repositories. These include Maseno University, which has recently become the first signatory of the Berlin Declaration on Open Access in Kenya, Kenyatta University, which is about to adopt an institutional Open Access policy and is already running its own IR, Moi University, University of Nairobi and JKUAT, which has recently issued a Digital Repository Policy document so well drafted that it may become a source of inspiration for many other institutions in the continent.

Efforts during the Open Access activity week at KU were aimed to train the Kenyatta University IR and ICT staff and KU researchers and Management Board on Open Access and on how to deal with the new institutional repository which is being developed by the University Library. The 2-day seminar held at the Kenya School of Monetary Studies (KSMS) -organised by Reuben Njuguna, KU Dept. of Business Administration- provided the summit in the OA advocacy sessions held during the week. The first day of this event was devoted to introducing Open Access and its current worklines to the KU Management board, with talks by Gitau George Njoroge, Director of KU Library, Iryna Kuchma, EIFL Open Access Programme manager, William Nixon, Digital Library manager at the University of Glasgow and Brian Hole, manager of the Ubiquity Press Open Access publisher. The second day a round of group discussions was held among the KU VCs and professors in order to establish the guidelines for a draft Open Access policy for KU, which is now under review by the KU Law Department in order to make it final.

In the meantime KU legacy dissertations are starting to be digitised in order to provide full-text files to the metadata-only items that presently constitute the largest part of the KU IR. Metadata sets associated with different document types are also undergoing an update so they'll fit the requirements for providing a thorough description of the KU research output. Once this processes reach an advanced state, an advocacy campaign for further dissemination of the advantages the IR provides the KU community will be carried out at KU Schools. Ideally this should result in KU researchers and professors having the opportunity to offer their online research profiles and publications in the same way as Dr. Erik Nordman, a GVSU researcher in environmental economics who is currently spending a sabbatical year at KU School of Environmental Studies and whose publications are easy to track at his home ScholarWorks@GVSU repository.

The setting up of the KU IR will not only provide visibility for the KU scholarly output, but will also help introducing better description procedures for the Faculty members' publications. Once it gets consolidated as a fully operational reporting tool, the IR will also become the default platform for collecting the KU research output, including the journals internally published by KU Schools and Departments which are currently impossible to track online. If the IR Project at KU is able to keep its cruise speed and meet its strategic goals, the Kenyatta University Library should in the mid-term develop a research information management system as inspirating as its actual building.

With the ongoing EIFL-funded Project “Knowledge without boundaries: Advocacy campaign in Kenya for OA and institutional repositories” providing a solid platform for promoting Open Access and IRs in the country through the Kenyan Library and Information Services Consortium (KLISC), a national network of well-populated institutional repositories could soon become a reality, showing the way ahead to other East African countries.

[Open Access] Spotlight on Nairobi

  Next week a couple of interesting Open Access-related events will take place in Nairobi - making the Open Access spotlight (partly) shift away from Europe, North America and the developed countries into Kenya. It's not the first time interesting Open Access-related events happen in Kenya - a very successful BioMed Central-organised 1st Open Access Africa (OAA) Conference took place in Nairobi in Nov 2010.

Prior to briefly describing these activities, it may be useful for introductory purposes to have a look at this interesting map featured above - courtesy of Benjamin Hennig and his Social and Spatial Inequalities Research Group at the University of Sheffield, UK, based upon data kindly supplied by SPARC. The map shows a ponderated image of the world countries according to the number of Open Access dissemination activities they organised during the Open Access Week event in 2010 (the picture actually remained very much the same for OAW2011). When we look at the current geographical distribution of Open Access repositories worlwide at the OpenDOAR directory, there is a massive bias towards the developed world. However, when we check which countries are doing better in terms of promoting Open Access and establishing their own repository networks, we see both India and Kenya at the top three. In physics terminology, in order to properly describe a situation, you should both account for the actual value and the gradient of such value, gradient meaning its rate of change. So even if values may presently not look too encouraging, they will eventually change as a result of persistent efforts to drive such change.

The abovementioned Open Access activities to be held next week at two Kenyan universities in Nairobi are two good examples for those drivers for change. Kenyatta University will be hosting an Open Access workshop for raising institutional awareness of its Open Access Repository Project. This will be achieved by running different sessions along the 1-week Open Access advocacy seminar for all involved stakeholders within the University: Library and ICT Staff, Researchers from various disciplines and the Kenyatta University Management Board. Also next week, the University of Nairobi will be holding a one day workshop for the University Management Board on Open Access and institutional repositories, paying especial attention to the policy strand. This event is part of the EIFL-funded Project “Knowledge without boundaries: Advocacy campaign in Kenya for OA and institutional repositories”.

Maybe a bit more attention could be paid to Open Access advances in developing countries (even if stakeholders such as BMC and OKFN are already doing it, as well as UNESCO, IFLA and of course EIFL), since it may best serve those countries where severe restrictions to research information apply. Internet connectivity conditions permitting -still a pending issue in most African contries despite recent improvement- there will be some further reporting next week from Nairobi.

Interesting times for Open Access

  Quite a heated discussion in Open Access circles has followed the recent release of the Finch Report on expanding access to published research findings in the UK and the endorsement by the UK Govenment and funders of its recommendation for making Gold Open Access the default standard for future scientific communication. The day after the UK Government announced it was assuming all but one Finch Report recommendations, the EC also adopted the Communication "Towards better access to scientific information: Boosting the benefits of public investments in research", in which a wider implementation of Open Access -both Gold and Green- to research publications and data was set as a goal for present FP7 and future Horizon2020 European research programmes.

Although usually welcoming its implicit support of Open Access to research outputs, the Finch Report has been heavily criticized within the Open Access movement for not acknowledging the opportunities the available OA repository network and Green OA in general offer to achieve extended access to research publications. The cost of the proposed transition to a Gold OA model was claimed to be disproportionate and most fervid critics dubbed the Finch Report a result of sheer publisher lobbying, while moderate ones pointed out the proposed transition model was unfit for international adoption, especially in developing countries.

However, proposing Gold OA as a default model for extending access to research is hardly a new argument. A couple of months ago at the PEER End-of-Project conference in Brussels -which incidentally had a wide number of publishers in the audience while practically no representatives of repository projects attended the event despite PEER involving both communities- the project managers highlighted one of PEER's main conclusions being that Green OA was not sufficiently popular among research authors and could therefore not be considered the best way for making research outputs widely available. Even if this conclusion may be considered biased and has also been extensively discussed, it is a fact that many researchers from various disciplines do not like open access repositories.

Some of the most conspicuous voices within the Open Access movement do however seem to favour [otherwise perfectly justified] protest against Green OA not being accounted for over self-criticism and analysis of what the reasons are for researchers' frequent preference for open access journals instead of repositories and what steps could be taken in order to overcome such repository shortcomings. Besides criticism of the very expensive alternatives, a clearer lobbying effort would also be desirable for explaining evidence-based advantages of Green OA and the lines the repository community is currently working at in order to improve the user experience. There are very ambitious indeed repository-related projects going on at the moment -such as the UK RepositoryNet+ or OpenAIRE in the EU- aiming to enhance currently existing repository networks so they'll best suit researchers' needs by building upon already large previous experience.

Having had the chance to extensively discuss with researchers what they do and what they don't like about repositories, there seem to be evident issues in the way these platforms have been developed that justify current distrust of them as sound research information sources by a significant numer of authors. Two of the main among these are the lack of metadata harmonisation and the lack of information about work versions filed in the repositories. Although their number is growing and various efforts are under way to improve this, still very few repositories are presently offering harmonised information about funding agencies and projects associated to specific papers or about the version of such papers that is filed in the repository. Other than that, insufficient information is available on the funder policy compliance rates and a significant effort remains to be done in the field of repository usage, where testing repository vs publisher usage for a given work could be quite revealing. All these lines are currently being dealt with by the abovementioned projects, and there will be interesting breakthroughs in coming months around repositories and Green OA.

As for Gold OA, its strong backing by funders and the Government in the UK -as well as implicitly by publishers- opens the door for a gradual transition process (to be mainly but not only tested in the UK as for now) from a subscription-based model to another one relying on Author Processing Charges (APCs), to be increasingly dealt with at institutional level. Two main shortly-arriving outcomes of this transition process should be: (i) new publishing business models for institutional funding of access to research papers -with the RSC 'Gold for Gold' initiative showing the way ahead- and (ii) some standard way of dealing with APCs at institutional level being proposed - with the JISC/Wellcome Trust call for proposals regarding a role in managing payment of Open Access APCs being a first step along that line and initiatives such as Open Access Key (OAK) starting to offer such required services.

These are undoubtedly very interesting times for following Open Access evolution -and the increasing impact of OA-related news in general-purpose media is a good evidence for that- and from a look at the detailed picture of Open Access in the UK recently provided by Nature it's not hard to conclude that Green OA and repositories are here to stay and that the transition process to a Gold OA-based publishing model is set to be a long and winding road.

PEER End of Project Conference: a few reflections

  The fact that the PEER European Project (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) has managed to establish a fruitful communication channel between publishers and repositories was repeatedly highlighted along the PEER End of Project Conference held last Tue May 29th in Brussels. This ability for fostering a successful collaboration between stakeholders initially at conflicting positions is undoubtedly one of the main PEER outcomes and it would be good news for the Open Access movement as a whole if these communication channels could remain open in the future. As Norbert Lossau put it, favouring pragmatism over ideology could be very useful for jointly outlining evolving business models.

The second most important achievement of the PEER project was being able to establish a tested publisher-repository transfer infrastructure which can be deployed beyond the project. A good number of PEER components and technical findings -such as the PEER Depot dark archive, adoption of the TEI format as an unique metadata interchange standard or SWORD as standard transfer protocol, the way usage is dealt with or the use of the GROBID component for automatic metadata extraction- are potentially re-usable for other ongoing or future publisher-driven transfer initiatives and especially valuable for automatic item transfer into repositories within an hegemonic Gold Open Access scenario that was also frequently predicted along the meeting.

Additional publisher-driven deposit initiatives such as Japanese 'Zoological Science meets Institutional Repositories' were mentioned along the conference as well as COAR involvement in the interoperability strand pottentially offering opportunities for follow-up work. Besides that, the JISC-funded SONEX Group has repeatedly underlined along its analysis of deposit use-case scenarios the strong workflow similarities between PEER and the JISC Open Access Repository Junction (OA-RJ) Project carried out at EDINA in Edinburgh. The RJ Broker feature -which performs a very similar role to the PEER Depot 'moulinette'- is currently being enhanced and will shortly be offered as a service through the UK RepositoryNet+ Project.

The figures associated to the PEER project are certainly impressive: 53,000 stage-two manuscripts (aka post-prints in SHERPA RoMEO terminology) from 241 journals published by 12 mainstream publishers were processed by the PEER Depot resulting in 22,500 EU manuscript deposits (including embargoed papers) released into six different IRs plus into a long-term preservation archive at the KB in The Hague. Two submission routes were designed: automatic publisher-driven deposit and 11,800 invitations to authors for self-archiving their papers, the latter one resulting in just 170 author deposits (or 0.2% of total PEER deposits).

The large difference between deposit figures associated to the two deposit routes led PEER researchers to conclude that authors sympathise with OA but don't see self-archiving as their task, therefore "Green OA not being the key road to optimal scholar information systems". The PEER Usage research -one of the three research team projects within the PEER Research strand along with Behavioural and Economics research- proved also that although current findings reflect the position of a relatively early stage in PEER development, Open Access repositories are not really a threat to publishers (thus confirming the so-called "no effect" publisher hypothesis). In fact, making pre-prints visible in PEER repositories actually generates more traffic to publisher sites, although the ever growing rates of publisher downloads make it hard to supply an accurate measurement of the impact on publishers of post-print availability in repositories. Ian Rowlands from CIBER Research Ltd estimated that publisher full-text downloads increased by 11.4% as a result of earlier version of papers being available at the IR.

Gold vs Green OA

While testing Green Open Access and its economic consequences for the publishing ecosystem in Europe was the main PEER goal and Green OA was the preferred workline when the Project started back in Sep 2008, the Gold Open Access route seems nowadays to be winning hearts and minds of those trying to promote access to research output on a wide basis. PEER has produced quite a number of evidences on the fact that Green OA does not harm journals nor publishers, but in the meantime attention has shifted to Gold Open Access and hybrid journals as a way to ensure that final publisher/PDF versions of the papers are made available.

This is probably the strongest argument in favour of Gold OA, but there are also very good ones that support Green OA. As a result, a lively debate is taking place these days inside the Open Access community on which OA model should receive main support from the government bodies. Many voices argue as well that both models should co-exist, as the research output coverage will be wider as a consequence. And there is finally an important fact to be accounted for after watching PEER result of 99.8 vs 0.2% automatic vs author-driven deposit: author self-archiving rates should not be systematically used as reliable indicators of the strength of Green OA, since there is nowadays a wealth of alternative ways to populate repositories that do not imply self-archiving obligations for authors. In fact CRIS systems, their integration with IRs and the resulting alternative workflows for content ingest into repositories were not mentioned at all last Tuesday despite having already been proved effective by a recently released UKOLN report. When trying to offer a fair estimation of Green OA relevance based on the wider deposit picture, the contribution to repository population from these alternative workflows should also be considered.