Abstract
The UK open access (OA) policy landscape simultaneously preferences Gold publishing models (Finch Report, RCUK, COAF) and Green OA through repository usage (HEFCE), creating the possibility of confusion and duplication of effort for academics and support staff. Alongside these policy developments, there has been an increase in open science services that aim to provide global data on OA. These services often exist separately to locally managed institutional systems for recording OA engagement and policy compliance. The aim of this study is to enhance Brunel University London’s local publication data using software which retrieves and processes information from the global open science services of Sherpa REF, CORE, and Unpaywall. The study draws on two classification schemes; a ‘best location’ hierarchy, which enables us to measure publishing trends and whether open access dissemination has taken place, and a relational ‘all locations’ dataset to examine whether individual publications appear across multiple OA dissemination models. Sherpa REF data is also used to indicate possible OA locations from serial policies. Our results find that there is an average of 4.767 permissible open access options available to the authors in our sample each time they publish and that Gold OA publications are replicated, on average, in 3 separate locations. A total of 40% of OA works in the sample are available in both Gold and Green locations. The study considers whether this tendency for duplication is a result of localised manual workflows which are necessarily focused on institutional compliance to meet the Research Excellence Framework 2021 requirements, and suggests that greater interoperability between OA systems and services would facilitate a more efficient transformation to open scholarship.
Highlights
Described within Suber’s seminal monograph on open access [1], the history of open scholarly communication can be traced back almost two decades
The study considers whether this tendency for duplication is a result of localised manual workflows which are necessarily focused on institutional compliance to meet the Research Excellence Framework 2021 requirements, and suggests that greater interoperability between open access (OA) systems and services would facilitate a more efficient transformation to open scholarship
The Sherpa REF data highlights the scale of possible OA locations available to authors when making dissemination decisions for their research
Summary
Described within Suber’s seminal monograph on open access [1], the history of open scholarly communication can be traced back almost two decades. The clear message delivered by this declaration led to the adoption of OA policies at an institutional and funder level, with OA becoming, in recent years, a notable area of focus for librarians, research offices, and funding bodies. Such enthusiasm has resulted in an increasingly complex policy terrain whereby institutional policies exist alongside those of various funding bodies. Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) lists 928 distinct policies by research organisations and funding bodies [3]. UK institutions have been required to implement the Higher Education Funding Council England’s (HEFCE) OA policy for the 2021 Research Excellence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call