This document discusses the implementation of an open access policy at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). It provides details on the terms of the UCSF open access policy, including that faculty grant a nonexclusive license to the university to distribute their scholarly articles and are required to provide an electronic copy of the final published article. It also outlines challenges in implementing the policy at UCSF and across the UC system, such as engaging with publishers, tracking waivers and embargoes, developing a harvesting solution, and ensuring an easy deposit process for faculty. Lastly, it discusses next steps for the implementation, including establishing workflows for manual deposit, evaluating harvesting options, and providing a streamlined waiver and embargo request system.

1. Institutional OA Policy Implementation:
The Joys and Challenges
Presented to DLF, November 4, 2012
Catherine Mitchell
Lisa Schiff
Justin Gonder
Access & Publishing Group
California Digital Library

2. UCSF Open Access Policy
• May 2012: UCSF faculty-led Open Access
policy initiative passes the Academic Senate –
applies to all ladder rank faculty.
[

3. Terms of the UCSF OA Policy
• The license:
o For the purpose of open dissemination, each Faculty member grants to the Regents of the University
•Grant of nonexclusive license from
of California, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under
copyright relating to eachFaculty to thescholarly articles, in any medium, providing that the articles
of his or her Regents of UC
•CC-BY-NC
are not sold, and to authorize others to do the same.
o •No Copyright Transfer
This policy does not transfer copyright ownership, which remains with Faculty authoring under
existing University of California policy. be waived; access may be
•License may
o Application of the licensedelayedwaived for a particular article or access delayed for a specified
will be
period of time upon express direction by a Faculty member to the University of California.
• The Deposit:
o To assist the University in •Faculty provide final version by date of
disseminating scholarly articles, each Faculty member will provide an
publication
electronic copy of his or her final version of the article to the University of California by the date of
publication. •Pub will be put in OA repository
o •Faculty may instead notify of other OA
The University of California will make the article available in an open-access repository.
o When appropriate, a faculty member may instead notify the University of California if the article will
location
be freely available in another repository or as an open access publication
• The Mandate
o The faculty calls upon the Academic Senate and the University of California to develop and monitor a
service or mechanism that would render implementation and compliance with the policy as
•Faculty require convenient compliance
convenient for the Faculy as possible.

4. UCSF/UC OA timeline
• May 2012: UCSF Policy passes
• June 2012: Waiver/embargo workflow established
by CDL
• December 2012: UC-wide Academic Senate will vote
on systemwide OA policy
• June 2013: Robust deposit, waiver/embargo and
harvesting workflows will be implemented by CDL in
partnership with campus libraries

5. Where will these OA publications live?

6. Focus of this Working Session
• Implementation requirements/challenges
• Sample workflows for manual deposit
• Harvesting complexities/solutions
• Discussion topics:
– How to engage faculty
– Tracking publisher response
– Conflating waivers & embargoes
– Harvesting: to buy or to build
– How to measure success – and for whom

7. Core implementation requirements
• Compliance with terms of UC OA policy
• Compliance with publisher requirements
• Accurate metadata
• Efficient and painless for faculty

8. How do others do it?

9. What makes this so complicated?
• Multiple data sources:
– Individual deposit, along with files deposited with waiver/embargo requests
– Harvesting
– Other OA repositories/publications
• Various publisher requirements in response to the policy
– Waiver demands
– Embargo time frames
– Publication versions
– Variability across titles within a single publisher
• Importance of correct metadata to signify identity of publication and its relationship to the
version of record
• Necessity of copyright expertise and local library resources to help guide faculty through the
waiver/embargo/deposit process
• Fundamental requirement that the workflow be efficient, minimal and intuitive for faculty
• Others?

10. And why is it even more complicated
at the University of California?
• Consortial service – must be designed and developed for (potentially) 10
campuses
• Desire for a fully automated, centralized workflow that maintains a de-
duped repository of pubs that link back to version of record
• Limited to no campus library resources to manage the deposit process
manually

11. Anticipated Costs
• Technical development and maintenance
• Harvesting solution
• Campus library support
• Copyright/intellectual property
education/support
• Customer/technical support services

12. Necessary Resources
• CDL Access & Publishing Team
• Campus co-investment?
• Campus co-development?
• Campus library staffing?
• UC Office of the President support?

13. Where we are now:
UCSF Implementation

14. Interaction with the publishers
• Letters sent to publishers explaining policy
• Publishers requiring a waiver in response:
– AAAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript
– ACS – 12 months embargo. Publisher’s version PDF allowed (when a policy in place.)
– American Public Health Association (American Journal of Public Health) has indicated
they may impose an embargo or reject the policy
– NAS – 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript
– Nature - 6 month embargo (after publication). Author’s final manuscript
– Project Hope (Health Affairs journal) – archiving not formally supported
– Wiley-Blackwell – 0-24 months embargo, depending on the publication. Author’s final
manuscript
• Requests processed thus far:
– Waiver: 67
– Embargo: 4
– Addendum: 13

15. Current Workflow

16. Where we are headed
Manual
Harvested Manual
waiver/embargo
metadata deposit request
Publisher
requirements
database
Faculty Current
correction/approval eScholarship
+ file upload
pubs database

17. Where we are headed -
Harvesting

18. Harvesting Solutions Need to…
1. Pull in metadata/publication links from major
publication sources
– PubMed
– Web of Science
– CrossRef
Manually entry of publication data should be a last
resort!

19. Harvesting Solutions Need to…
2. Evaluate and augment the record
– Check for permissions against a locally
maintained publisher requirements database
(Sherpa/Romeo is insufficient)
– Prevent duplication by checking against the
existing OA repository holdings
Determine how to handle the record early on in the
process.

20. Harvesting Solutions Need to…
3. Allow authors (or proxies) to
– Claim/Reject
– Modify metadata
– Approve for submission to one or more locations
– Manage the harvested publication record
– Adjust/refine settings that impact harvesting
performance
Faculty need to have control.

21. Harvesting Solutions Need to…
4. Integrate with existing institutional systems to
ease existing administrative burdens
– Promotion and Tenure Systems
– Awards and Compliance Systems
– HR Systems
Integration = efficiencies for faculty and staff

22. Harvesting Solutions Need to…
5. Enable a seamless workflow
Harvest Publisher Requirements
Check
Repository Deduplication
Check
Faculty Alert
Faculty
Modifications
Faculty Approval

23. Harvesting Solutions: Commercial
What we like… What we don’t like…
• Robust and flexible • $$$ Requires new funding
• Code maintained by 3rd party • Changes depend on vendor
• Access to open and licensed responsiveness
resources
– arXiv PubMed
– CiNii* RePEc
– dblp Scopus*
– Mendeley*
– Web of Science* †
– CrossRef* British Library*
– Google Books

24. Harvesting Solutions: Homegrown
What we like… What we don’t like
• Customized to fit our needs • $$ Requires additional
• Contributing to existing resources or reallocation of
community resources existing resources
– An extension of BibApp ? • Another system to maintain
• Native integration with the • No access to licensed
rest of our scholarly sources
communication services

25. Where we are headed –
Deposit

26. Information that will help us guide users
Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable
• Who are you?
3rd party lookup service.
• What’s the name of Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in
your article? external locations.
Connection to publisher database prevents users
• Who did you publish
from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most
with? appropriate version.
• When did / will you Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs
publish? to be reminded later.
• Did you publish in OA?
Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables
• Will you make an OA us to harvest metadata and file.
deposit elsewhere?
• Do you have an
Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and
identifier for your
externally. image credit: CaliSphere
article? goo.gl/yCpiD

27. Information that will help us guide users
Shibboleth connection to track harvesting / enable
• Who are you?
3rd party lookup service.
• What’s the name of Allows us to locate duplicates, discover article in
your article? external locations.
Connection to publisher database prevents users
• Who did you publish
from asking for the wrong thing; lets us ask for most
with? appropriate version.
• When did / will you Lets us know if the user is ready to upload or needs
publish? to be reminded later.
• Did you publish in OA?
Prevents duplication of effort / potentially enables
• Will you make an OA us to harvest metadata and file.
deposit elsewhere?
• Do you have an
Allows us to locate duplicates, both internally and
identifier for your
externally.
article?

28. Using this information, we might:
• Check against a
publisher / publication
policy database
• Check against harvested
& previously deposited
content
• Attempt to harvest on
demand
• Pre-fill metadata
• Check SHERPA/RoMEO*

29. Tone: What’s the appropriate
voice for this service?
Easily identifiable solutions
Clear path to additional
support

30. What’s the minimum set
of questions we need up
front in order to provide
the most tailored,
relevant experience
throughout the remainder
of the deposit process?

31. Based on the previous
questions, we want to run
some automated checks:
- Have we already
harvested this
document?
- If not, is there
anything we can
harvest (such as
metadata)?
- What do we know
about the publisher’s
policies?
- What do we know
about our own
agreements with the
publisher?

32. Example tailored
experience
Potential to provide a
warning if we suspect a
waiver or embargo are
needed.
Ability to pre-fill author
information based on login
credentials
Guidance on which version
to upload

33. Clear path to additional
support
Multiple opportunities to
verify and modify
information.
Interactive feedback

34. Final opportunity to verify
and modify deposit.

35. Clear information on what
to expect next and possible
next steps.

36. Where we are headed –
Waiver/Embargo

37. Help! I think I
need a waiver
from this policy!
Actually, our records
indicate that a 6-
month embargo
should suffice.
image credit: Jarred m4r00n3d @ Flickr
goo.gl/2lyzj

40. Running checks against
publisher / publication
database.
Also a potential to
crowdsource the building
of this database by storing
and verifying common
responses.

41. Guidance on which options
to select

42. Easy access to requested
documents
Optional deposit

43. Discussion
 How to engage faculty
 Tracking publisher response
 Conflating waivers & embargoes
 Harvesting: to buy or to build
 How to measure success – and for
whom