detail in Section 7 underlies all the recommendations we make in this
present section. We present below the series of recommendations for actions that we think JISC and other stakeholders need to make in order to
maximise the chances of success of the proposed harvesting model. The tools for doing many of these steps have already been developed (often funded by JISC) and are shown in the table that follows the list below.
1. Give institutions and funders the reasons for adopting an official Open Access provision policy
The main reasons why open access provision policies should be adopted by educational institutions and funders are:
• Open Access dramatically increases research impact
• Institutional archives provide a means for an institution to measure and
reward research effort objectively
• Open Access to research articles enables funders to measure and reward
research effort objectively
2. Develop a programme to persuade all research-led HE institutions to establish e-print archives
This involves developing both incentives and methods to encourage UK
institutions to provide e-prints.
Incentives would include the provision of the following, to encourage institutions to join a trend that is gathering pace:
• Continually updated data on the numbers of UK e-print archives, their
locations and how numbers are growing
• Continually updated data on the numbers of articles stored in these
archives and how they are growing
• The latest figures on the increased impact that open access articles enjoy
• The latest information from SHERPA/RoMEO on publisher self-archiving
policies, so that institutions can direct researchers accordingly
• Information on how an institutional archive can improve the RAE and
make it cheaper and easier (Harnad et al., 2003).
Methods would include:
• Creating a generic demonstration for institutions showing the simple
steps to creating an e-print archive
• Showing how simple it is to create and work with a standardised RAE CV
Because there may be institutions willing but unable to create e-print archives for cash reasons, there may be cash implications for JISC here.
3. Develop a programme to persuade researchers to self-archive their work in e-print archives
Again, both incentives and methodscan be developed for this purpose.
Incentives would include provision of:
• The latest figures on the increased impact that open access articles enjoy
• The latest information from SHERPA/RoMEO on publisher self-archiving
policies, so that authors can easily check whether the journal they are submitting work to permits self-archiving
• A form-based author request to any non-‘green’ publisher (one that does
not explicitly permit self-archiving) asking permission to self-archive a specified article, with wording to the effect ‘if refusal is not received within 30 days, then it is assumed that permission has been granted’
• A form-based author request to his/her institution to request that it
creates an e-print archive if it doesn’t have one
Methods would include:
• Creating a generic demonstration that showed authors the simple steps
required to submit their articles to an e-print archive; the demo should also put the general case for Open Access via this route
• Providing an impact correlator that enables authors to predict, from early-
days e-print download data, the eventual citation impact from six months later
4. Explore possibilities for cooperation with the British Library on a ‘mop- up’ archive
The British Library has expressed interest in collaborating with JISC on the provision of an e-print archive to house articles from authors with nowhere else to deposit them. JISC should progress this initiative with the BL. 5. Develop a programme to persuade non-educational research
establishments to set up e-print archives
A substantial proportion of UK research output comes from outside educational establishments, from research institutes and government laboratories. JISC should provide the same incentive-and-method information to these bodies as to the universities (as in [2] above).
6. Work with funders to encourage them to mandate self-archiving of their funded research, and perhaps to establish their own e-print archives where appropriate
Funders can influence self-archiving very strongly and a mandate from the main research funders in the UK for it would tip the balance immediately in favour of an effective nationwide service. JISC should work with the main funders (research councils and larger charities) to encourage such a policy, and to facilitate funders to provide e-print archives themselves to provide an archive for use by researchers who do not have one in their own institution.
There may be cash implications for JISC here.
7. Identify a group of stakeholders to establish the desirability (or not) of a co-ordinated approach to controlled subject metadata, identify appropriate schemes and recommend ways to develop supporting mechanisms
The stakeholders envisaged here are: the data and service providers and the software developers.
The targeted recommendations discussed above are summarised in the table overleaf. In addition to the specific tools listed, we recommend the eprints handbook which comprehensively covers all the steps in setting up and operating an institutional archive (http://software.eprints.org/handbook/).
Action recommended Tool or methodology where one exists already; notes or comments
Give institutions and funders the reasons for adopting an official open access provision policy
Data to date on increased impact of open access articles
from Lawrence, 2001; Kurtz et al, 2003; Kurtz, 2004;
Harnad & Brody, 2004 Develop a programme to
persuade all research-led HE institutions to establish e-print archives. Provision of:
• Continually updated data on
the numbers of UK e-print archives, their locations and how numbers are growing
• Continually updated data on
the numbers of articles stored in these archives and how they are growing
• The latest figures on the
increased impact that open access articles enjoy
• The latest information from
SHERPA/RoMEO on publisher self-archiving policies, so that institutions can direct researchers accordingly
• Information on how an
institutional archive can improve the RAE and make it cheaper and easier
• A generic demonstration for
institutions showing the simple steps to creating an e-print archive
• Information showing how
simple it is to create and
http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?action=browse and
http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?action=analysis
Data to date on increased impact of open access articles
from Lawrence, 2001; Kurtz et al, 2003; Kurtz, 2004;
Harnad & Brody, 2004
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php http://romeo.eprints.org
and
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
Harnad et al., 2003; Bence & Oppenheim, 2004
work with a standardised RAE CV from this, and how easy it is to harvest
performance indicators from it.
Develop a programme to persuade researchers to self- archive their work in e-print archives. Provision of:
• The latest figures on the
increased impact that open access articles enjoy
• The latest information from
SHERPA/RoMEO on publisher self-archiving policies, so that authors can easily check whether the journal they are submitting work to permits self-
archiving
• A form-based author request
to any non-‘green’ publisher (one that does not explicitly permit self-archiving) asking permission to self- archive a specified article, with wording to the effect ‘if refusal is not received
within 30 days, then it is assumed that permission has been granted’
• A form-based author request
to his/her institution to request that it creates an e- print archive if it doesn’t have one
• A generic demonstration
that shows authors the simple steps required to
Data to date on increased impact of open access articles
from Lawrence, 2001; Kurtz et al, 2003; Kurtz, 2004;
Harnad & Brody, 2004
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php http://romeo.eprints.org
and
submit their articles to an e- print archive; the demo should also put the general case for Open Access via this route
• An impact correlator that
enables authors to predict, from early-days e-print download data, the eventual citation impact from six months later
For the method see Harnad & Brody 2004; for the tool see http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php
Explore possibilities for cooperation with the British Library on a ‘mop-up’ archive Develop a programme to persuade non-educational research establishments to set up e-print archives
Government-funded research institutes; privately- or charitably-funded research establishments; industrial research establishments
Work with funders to encourage them to establish e-print
archives where appropriate, or to mandate self-archiving in other cases
The UK research councils and larger charities
Identify a group of stakeholders to establish the desirability (or not) of a co-ordinated approach to controlled subject metadata, identify appropriate schemes and recommend ways to
develop supporting mechanisms
Software developers, data providers and service providers should be brought together on this