This is a presentation given to the Researcher to Reader conference held in London 15-16 February 2016 (http://r2rconf.com/) Abstract: Universities are, by their nature, tribal; but the tribes extend beyond disciplinary boundaries, with different administrative areas having their own behavioural norms. Increased expectations for researchers and their institutions to be accountable for their funding poses huge communication challenges, particularly for large devolved institutions. Many of these tribes are now having to work together in ways that they have not before, creating an unprecedented opportunity.

1. Getting an Octopus into a String Bag
The complexity of communicating with the research
community across a higher education institution
Dr Danny Kingsley
Research 2 Reader
15 February 2016

2. The OA policy landscape
Three sets of rules in the UK.
They are all different.

3. The MEANS and the TIMING all conflict
RCUK – Green & Gold | HEFCE – Green only | COAF – Gold only

4. In place since 2011

5. The principles might be common…

6. What the researcher hears
From Bill Hubbard Getting the rights right: when policies collide
http://www.slideshare.net/UKSG/hubbard-uksg-may2015-public

7. First let’s talk some numbers
The numbers are huge

8. Cambridge research
https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/research_in_numbers.pdf

9. HEFCE potentially requires us to collect
ALL papers
• Don’t know how many we need to aim for…
• Cambridge published approximately 8,000
articles and reviews in 2015
• We received 3,370 articles in 2015

10. Academia is tribal
‘Invisible colleges’ relate to the
community people have with their
discipline – this is NOT their institution

11. Disciplinary Tribes

12. And they have no time
• Study in Cambridge of researchers showed
they have about 20 minutes to devote to
anything
– ‘What does a researcher do all day?’ -
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=515
• There are very few points in the publishing
process where the researcher intersects with
the institution
– Publishing Experience Maps
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/252889

13. This is Cambridge’s structure

14. One School
There isn’t room on this slide for the three Institutes
that are also associated with this School…

15. A whole other tribal system
http://www.cam.ac.uk/for-staff/features/colleges-and-university-a-complex-relationship

16. And then there is the administration
You Tube Cambridge in Numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsb2Ck
MsM

17. Ironic – where academic
independence is sacred

18. Bloody hell
Confusing and complicated policy landscape
Academics hostile towards being told what to do
A huge and unconnected institution

19. How we cut through the noise

20. Since October 2014
www.openaccess.cam.ac.uk

21. Upload your accepted manuscript –
and tell us a bit about it

22. Huge engagement programme

23. Constant outreach
Twitter:
@CamOpenData
@CamOpenAccess
Newsletter sign up: www.data.cam.ac.uk
www.osc.cam.ac.uk
Blog: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk

24. Postcards & banners
All promotional materials can be downloaded from
www.lib.cam.ac.uk/librarians/oa/oa_promo.html

25. We will do ANYTHING!
Email signatures sent to all departmental administrators
and librarians
Drop-in sessions across campus
Resorting
to bribery!

26. So, how are we doing?
Depends on how you look at it

27. As at 5th Feb 2016

28. But lots of our research is OA
• About 56% of all eligible research available
– Springer Compact – all publications OA
– arXiv.org – developing compliance
– Considerable no. works published OA
• Other projects
– Unlocking Theses programme
– Academic-led publishing programme

29. Academics uninterested
• In 2015 - 93 papers published in Nature, Science, Cell,
The Lancet and PNAS
• 33% of these papers were already HEFCE compliant
• Of the remaining non-compliant papers we contacted
47 authors, made them aware of the HEFCE open
access policy, and invited them to submit their
accepted manuscript to the Open Access Service.
• Less than 40% of contacted authors sent their accepted
manuscript.
• Therefore, even after direct intervention only 49%
papers were HEFCE compliant
• Could the HEFCE policy be a Trojan Horse for gold
OA?https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=488

30. Confusing communications
• Submitting a publication to the repository are
different to submissions of publications to
ResearchFish at the end of a grant
– Research Operations Office run grants
– Office of Scholarly Communications runs Open
Access
– Research Data Facility runs Research Data
Management
– Research Strategy Office runs the REF return

31. Last ditch?
• Pushing to have a staff member employed for
a year to find out:
– Who is saying what to researchers
– How they are saying it
– When they are saying it
• We need to have joined up communications
that use the correct language, are timely and
helpful

32. There are no guarantees
in this game
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University libraries
dak45@cam.ac.uk
www.osc.cam.ac.uk
@dannykay68