Output Types and Open Access

After a chat with my colleague in the Library I feel a bit less daunted by the RCUK draft specification. 

I’m going to make a list of all the outputs that are new to us and prioritise them.  We will try to decide if they should go on our Repository or another institutional system and identify major  issues.  We are in a fortunate position as we have data rich systems so quite a number of the entities already exist on one or other of our core systems though we might need to add some new fields to capture the data required.

I also attended our institutional Open Access Working Group meeting today.  The functionality we have set up in the Repository to allow outputs to be linked to awards is going to be very useful for checking for compliance issues and we plan to do run some stats on compliance for specific funders shortly.

We need to drive careful consideration of selecting a ‘Yes’ publicity flag to relevant awards for those types that do not default to ‘Yes’ .  If there are no sensitive issues then we want them to be publicity ‘Yes’.

It is also important to us to ensure our Research System includes a funder reference against the award where one exists as this helps match up historical records.

We’ll try to improve the process for obtaining publication funds within the University and we be working with colleagues in the Finance Office to try and provide a simple guideline.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Output Types and Open Access

  1. I feel that we are probably in a similar situation here at Sunderland in terms of the overall issues; but I think that Glasgow are a little further down the line. We are currently spending time reconfiguring the reporting on a references database to meet the needs of our new research centres.
    Re the RCUK possible requirements it looks from your comments that our current data has similar output type information. As you say, some of the proposed data seems over the top for our internal needs.
    The main thing concerning me at the moment, is, if we do adopt the proposed RCUK output types, do we really want to try and re-categorise the existing 1000s of records?

  2. Valerie says:

    Hi Simon,

    Many thanks for your comments.

    Initial thoughts on re-categorisation is that we would map and group rather than re-categorise. I’m going to start by mapping our existing Repository types to the RCUK draft specification. I’ll also look at Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey (HEBCIS)categories to see how they align.

    I’ll post how I get on with the analysis of this over the next few months.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: