Following on from our blogpost for CORE on measuring the ‘openness’ of research outputs, myself and my colleague, David Walters, will be delivering talks at two forthcoming conferences. The first is on 9th March 2017 as part of RLUK 2017 and the second will be on 10th April at UKSG’s annual conference and exhibition. Excitingly, both talks will be in a ‘lightning’ format, being no longer than 7 minutes in length (which has been an interesting challenge as I am now very accustomed to delivering 45-50 minute lectures!). The RLUK talk will follow the PechaKucha format of 20 slides timed at 20 seconds each amounting to an overall presentation length of 6 minutes and 40 seconds!
I will make the slides available on this site once we have completed them, but in the mean time I have included an abstract below.
Embedding open scholarship: Measuring ‘openness’ over managing mandates
Abstract: In 2001, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) encapsulated the aspirational qualities of ‘openness’ that funders, scholars, institutions, services and publishers have since driven forward. It can be argued that this simplicity has been lost in the detail of implementing various funder mandates against publisher copyright restrictions, resulting in significant administrative overheads to support staff whose primary role is to smoothly progress a cultural change. Although the momentum is undeniable, the transition to open scholarship is now fraught with complexity.
In this context, and one year from the implementation of HEFCE’s open access requirements for the next REF, Brunel University London present an analysis of their entire research outputs portfolio through the open access data services of CORE, Lantern, DOAJ and BASE, revealing a scale of engagement, collaborations and duplication of effort not previously visible to a request driven service.
We consider whether a simple measure of ‘openness’ can help to inform future research policies and in the process make open access more than just a ‘tick-box’ compliance exercise for academics. We conclude by speculating on how this simple measure can potentially free up support staff from excessive administrative requirements to re-focus on promoting the broader benefits of open scholarship.