Information for Managers and Administrators
Information for Managers and Administrators
The library has drafted compliance reports for Research Excellence Framework (REF) Open Access requirements. The reports are sent to Deans of Research and copied to local Research Administrators at the end of each month.
Regular workshops are held to invite suggestions for the content and format of the report. The next workshop will be held on Thursday 28th June at 10.30am in the Library Talk-Lab (306). If you need to discuss anything before then, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org. We are happy to come out and meet with colleges and schools. The REF Open Access Reports Guidance document provides a short summary of the REF Open Access policy and explains what the report categories mean.
The table below lists requirements that have been raised at these workshops.
|1||Identify lead author||Papers with multiple GU authors appear in each Unit's report. There is therefore some duplication. College reps agreed they would like to continue with all papers for their unit included in their report even where their staff or student were not the lead author. The library will investigate identifying the lead Glasgow author in future reports but this may not be simple to achieve in the short term.||Raised|
|2||Indicate if 'gold'||Future reports might include indication that a decision has been made to pay for open access - often known as 'gold' open access. In such cases the full text will be brought into Enlighten by library staff once the article is published.||Done|
|3||Further help text for authors||The 'Read Me' tab will be updated with further caveats e.g. making it clearer that entries on the list are simply an indication of the full text not being on Enlighten yet and not necessarily an issue in all cases. Possible text to pass on to authors to explain what the data means. Contact email@example.com with questions about specific publications.||Done|
|4||Highlight / grade at risk||Consideration will be given to highlighting the most at risk records on the report e.g. highlighting those with 1 month to go until the 3 month deadline for uploading full text to Enlighten.||Done|
|5||Exclude non-paper abstracts||Should we identify and exclude conference proceedings that are abstracts of the type that will never have a full peer-reviewed paper from the 'At REF Risk' tab? REF contact says that all articles and conference proceedings are potentially eligible for REF but the OA requirements won't apply if no ISSN. Further investigation required. In the short term if items are unlikely to be submitted to REF we could mark them on Enlighten. To be discussed as part of data review early 2017.||Done|
|7||College summary||A summary table will be added for each College.||Planned|
|8||Chart indicating growth||The library may add a chart in future showing the growth in levels of compliance per unit. Added to QlikView.||Done|
|9||Subject level data||
The library will consider if details could be provide at subject level in addition to school level. This is not priority at present.
|10||Per staff member report||Some Units were interested in having a per staff member report. The library will discuss this with representatives from the School of Social and Political Sciences Administration and the School of Geographical and Earth Sciences who were present at the workshops. Possible in QlikView||Done|
|11||Staff with no publications||In future we may be able to generate a list of staff eligible for REF inclusion that have no papers on Enlighten so that local managers and administrators can check with them to see if they do have papers that should be added to Enlighten to ensure they are eligible for REF.||Planned|
|12||Include exemptions||The library will provide details of REF exceptions noted on publication records. It may take a few months for useful datasets to emerge.||Done|
|13||WoS and Pubmed searches||The library will contact each college and determine a plan to search with Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar or other relevant tools to find publications that have not been added to Enlighten.||Planned|
|14||Highlight non-compliant / non-exception||
If article has issues e.g. an exemption claimed, or non-compliant and user states that they do not want to claim an exception as they do not expect the paper to be submitted to REF do you want that coded and shared in the report and/or would you rather that is confidentially notified to Deans of Research to avoid potentially sharing sensitive comments? 15th June 2016 RSIO confirm that explanation of exemption or notification that author does not expect article to be included in REF should be included in the report and authors made aware that such information will be supplied to colleges and schools. It may be that exemptions are presented in a seperate tab - one tab showing exceptions and potential exclusions from REF, one showing items at Risk of not being compliant with REF Open Access requirements. Preferences vary.
|15||Clarify Action Required||
Correspondence and guidance to be revised to make it clearer:
What action needs to be taken for items at risk and by whom e.g. local administrators can check Enlighten before contacting authors as the record may have been updated since the report was run.
Definition of date of acceptance
That the report is not intended for general circulation
Report willl be updated to include an explanation of the different definitions used in Column D ‘Full text status’ and Column E ‘Is published’
|17||Unit of Assessment Report||In future once the REF Selections and Units of Assessment functionality is embedded we may run some reports by UoA||Raised|
|18||Inclusion Criteria||The publication date was used as a proxy for initial reports. If an items was published after 1st April 2016 it may have been accepted after 1st April. As acceptance date field is not complete we plan to use the date added to Enlighten but exclude records published before 1st April 2016.||
|19||Frequency||We would like to be able to deliver the reports on demand rather than as a snapshot.||Partially Complete|
|20||Non-compliant Publications||Once the deadline for compliant deposit has passed highlight items that did not meet this requirement distinct to the red flagged items which require action to comply.||Done|
|21||Highlight records deposited after 3 month period||Add red flag to records that have had full text deposited but after 3 months have elapsed since the publication date.||Done|
|22||Include data on REF Exceptions||Provide information and charts on the number and type of REF Exceptions that have been assigned by each College / School||Raised|
|23||Add deadline date on flags||Where there is one or two months remaining add in the deadline date so that colleges have this information||Done|
|24||Add UoA to 'ref risk' tab||Add UoA to risk tab so that colleges can prioritise items from authors that are likely to be returned to REF||Done|
|25||Clarify UoA purpose||When including UoA on at Risk tab make clear to recipients that the purpose of this field does not mean to not action other items.||Raised|
|26||Exception notes include a name||
Add name of person who supplied exception info to our note. Superceded not now including names.
|27||Add DOI||Add DOI and other publisher information to risk tab||Done|
|28||EPrints ID||Make EPrints id field a clickable link field||Done|
Some of these changes may take several months to process due to dependencies. We will also be working closely with REF experts in Research Strategy and Innovation Office to ensure that the correct criteria are applied.
Further guidance on REF eligibility will be added to RSIO website shortly.
A blank reporting template is available for information. If you are interested in the Open Access status for your unit please contact your Dean of Research or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Article Processing Charges (APCs) are upfront fees paid to a publisher to allow immediate open access to journal articles. If you are paying such fees from an existing research grant or other source please use account code 6162.
This will allow the University to identify APCs separately from other account codes and it will facilitate management of the Open Access funding granted to the University and allow us to quantify how much money across the University is spent on APCs.
Biomed Central (BMC)
The University of Glasgow has an open access pre-payment arrangement with BioMed Central for papers acknowledging funding by RCUK or COAF. On submission of a paper to BioMed Central please contact email@example.com to inform us of the funder name/s and award/s included in the paper.