I gave a paper at the iFutures doctoral conference at the University of Sheffield on 22 July 2014, even though I am not a PhD candidate. Link to the paper to follow, although that does not accurately represent the talk as given in tone and style.

1. Changes to UK
Institutional Repositories
Penny CS Andrews
University of Sheffield
Gilles San Martin, Fotopedia (CC BY -SA)

2. Trevor Coultart, Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND)
INTRODUCTION
• What is Open Access (OA)?
• What are the routes to OA?
• What is an institutional repository?
• How have funder policies changed recently?
• How does this relate to my study?

3. BACKGROUND
Ingolfson, Wikimedia Commons (PD)
• Call for mandating deposit in institutional
repositories
• Low compliance with institutional policy
across Europe (Liege an exception)
• Rising compliance with funder policy –
Wellcome increasing monitoring & sanctions
for non-compliance

4. PublicDomainPictures, Pixabay (CC-0)
Literature Review
• Mandates can help to accelerate change in
scholarly communications
• There is a role for funders in bringing about
change via policy
• Mandates vs Academic Freedom – mandates &
policies more successful if emphasise author
rights over responsibilities
• Need to state advantages and incentives for
authors Clearly

5. Literature Review II
• Stronger mandates apparently attract more
full text deposits
• Low awareness of institutional policy relative
to funder policy
• Poor understanding of what is meant by Open
Access and the various Creative Commons
licences – guidance needed
• Authors rights set in opposition to
institutional & societal needs and desires
karlherl,, Pixabay (CC-0)

6. PublicDomainPictures, Pixabay (CC-0)
Research Questions
1. What are the main characteristics of Open
Access policies in the UK?
2. What are the similarities and differences
between institutional Open Access policies
and their supporting documentation in the
UK?
3. Are clear mechanisms for monitoring and
encouraging compliance identified by the
policies and/or supporting documentation?

7. PublicDomainPictures, Pixabay (CC-0)
Methodology & Sampling
• Content analysis of policy documents and
supporting information
• Thematic coding
• Comparing documents to Shieber & Suber
(2013) guidance on best practice for
university OA policies & Best practice model
in Rentier (2013)/University of Liege
• Sample = policies available in ROARMAP
directory + representative examples (30 total)

8. Pete Jelliffe, Flickr (CC BY-ND)
Best Practice
• Shieber & Suber (2013)
• Rentier (2013)

9. Findings
Characteristics of policies:
1. location of policy document on library
website
2. Use of word “require” in reference to deposit
3. Links to external funder requirements in
supporting documents
4. Focus on incentives but not sanctions
Karl, Pixabay (CC-0)

10. Findings II
• Some state preference for green OA (9) and
some for gold (3)
• Communication of incentives for OA poor
• Few sanctions
• Little attention to monitoring compliance
• Delay in update to policy – changes to
guidance more common
cello5, Pixabay (CC-0)

11. Table 1: overview of Documents

12. Table 2: Compliance with Shieber & Suber

13. Table 3: Compliance with Rentier

14. FUTURE WORK
• Interviews with Repository/Open Access staff
– their perceptions of change to UK
repositories following the policy changes
• Theories used as lens through which to view
data: Actor-network Theory (ANT), socio-
technical interaction networks (STIN) and
social exchange theory
• Mary Anne Kennan’s (2011) models regarding
actor-network theory and repository
development will be applied to the data
Ed g2s, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA)

15. (For references, see the paper on the iFutures website)
Thanks!
Twitter: @pennyb
pcsandrews1@sheffield.ac.uk