Multilevel analysis of factors affecting open-access institutional repository implementation in Nigerian universities | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The study aims to identify novel open-access institutional repository (OAIR) implementation barriers and explain how they evolve. It also aims to extend theoretical insights into the information technology (IT) implementation literature.

Design/methodology/approach

The study adopted the interpretive philosophy, the inductive research approach and qualitative case study research method. Three Nigerian universities served as the case research contexts. The unstructured in-depth interview and the participatory observation were adopted as the data collection instruments. The qualitative data collected were analysed using thematic data analysis technique.

Findings

Findings show that IR implementation barriers evolved from global, organisational and individual implementation levels in the research contexts. Results specifically reveal how easy access to ideas and information and easy movement of people across international boundaries constituted globalisation trend-driven OAIR implementation barriers given their influence on OAIR implementation activities at the organisational and individual implementation levels. The two factors led to overambitious craving for information technology (IT) implementation and inadequate OAIR implementation success factors at the organisational level in the research contexts. They also led to conflicting IR implementation ideas and information at the individual level in the research contexts.

Research limitations/implications

The primary limitation of the research is the adoption of qualitative case study research method which makes its findings not generalisable. The study comprised only three Nigerian universities. However, the study provides plausible insights that explain how OAIR implementation barriers emanate at the organisational and individual levels due to two globalisation trends: easy access to ideas and information and easy movement of people across international boundaries.

Practical implications

The study points out the need for OAIR implementers to assess how easy access to information and ideas and easy movement of people across international boundaries influence the evolution of conflicting OAIR implementation ideas and information at the individual level, and overambitious craving for IT implementation and setting inadequate OAIR implementation success factors at the organisational level. The study extends views in past studies that propose that OAIR implementation barriers only emanate at organisational and individual levels, that is, only within universities involved in OAIR implementation and among individuals working in the universities.

Social implications

The study argues that OAIR implementation consists of three implementation levels: individual, organisational and global. It provides stakeholders with the information that there is a third OAIR implementation level.

Originality/value

Data validity, sample validity and novel findings are the hallmarks of the study’s originality. Study data consist of first-hand experiences and information derived during participatory observation and in-depth interviews with research participants. The participants were purposively selected, given their participation in OAIR implementation in the research contexts. Study findings on the connections among global, organisational and individual OAIR implementation levels and how their relationships lead to OAIR implementation barriers are novel.

Free for all, or free-for-all? A content analysis of Australian university open access policies | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Recent research demonstrates that Australia lags in providing open access to research outputs. In Australia, while the two major research funding bodies require open access of outputs from projects they fund, these bodies only fund a small proportion of research conducted. The major source of research and experimental development funding in Australian higher education is general university, or institutional, funding, and such funds are not subject to national funder open access policies. Thus, institutional policies and other institutional supports for open access are important in understanding Australia’s OA position. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to understand the characteristics of Australian institutional open access policies and to explore the extent they represent a coherent and unified approach to delivering and promoting open access in Australia. Open access policies were located using a systematic web search approach and then their contents were analysed. Only half of Australian universities were found to have an open access policy. There was a wide variation in language used, expressed intent of the policy and expectations of researchers. Few policies mention monitoring or compliance and only three mention consequences for non-compliance. While it is understandable that institutions develop their own policies, when language is used which does not reflect national and international understandings, when requirements are not clear and with consequences, policies are unlikely to contribute to understanding of open access, to uptake of the policy, or to ease of transferring understanding and practices between institutions. A more unified approach to open access is recommended.

 

UABC offers an online portal for open science

“In order to make public access to the scientific information, data, and products created at UABC [Autonomous University of Baja California] for the university community and society at large, the Open Science Project was initiated, a virtual space in which Maroon’s work and knowledge focus on scholars.

In this sense, Dr. Juan Guillermo Vaca Rodríguez, Head of the General Coordination of Research and Graduate Studies at UABC, explained that Open Science is a global movement that aims to open research (its methodologies, data, partial and final results and laboratory notes, among other products), from any discipline or field of knowledge.

In this way, the research created in this house of studies can be reused, redistributed, and reproduced by researchers, scientists, students, and anyone who wants to know how the world works and what happens outside of it.

To contribute to this movement, UABC has created the Open Science online portal which contains a search engine where required information can be found by author, title, subject, classification number, ISBN/ISSN, or nomenclature….

One relevant aspect of the portal is the Quality Seal, which will be awarded to internal bodies at UABC that comply with international best practices and standards for open science….”

Open Access Week events will feature the university’s new open access policy | VTx | Virginia Tech

“Beginning Oct. 25, Open Access Week will offer talks, panel discussions, and workshops to help Virginia Tech authors understand the importance of sharing their scholarship and how to do so. A key topic of discussion throughout the week is the university’s new open access policy.

Kevin McGuire, a professor in Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation and an Open Access Policy Working Group member, will discuss the new policy….

Also on that Monday from 6-8 p.m., experts from Virginia Tech and Harvard University will discuss the new open access policy. This feature presentation will dive into how the open access policy works, how it was developed, and why it’s important. Peter Suber from Harvard University’s Office of Scholarly Communication and members of the open access working group will answer questions from attendees regarding the open access policy. The presentation will be followed by introductions to open data and open educational resources….”

OAreport: Put OA policies into practice in minutes, not months.

“We discover papers and data using open scholarly metadata, targeted text and data mining, and an institution’s internal data sources….

We transparently analyse those papers against all the terms of the institution’s current policy, or custom criteria, to provide detailed statistics and key insights….

We help libraries and funders unlock individual papers as they’re published by making outreach a one-click process, and help build evidence for systemic changes….”

Thank you to the early adopters of arXiv’s new membership model! | arXiv.org blog

“We’re pleased to announce that Caltech, CERN, Georgia Institute of Technology, and MIT have pledged to become “arXiv champions of open science” for 2022. Each of these institutions has chosen to contribute $10,000 each — and this support will have a significant impact on arXiv’s ability to serve researchers. Thank you for leading the global research community towards truly open science!…”

OSF Preprints | A survey of funders’ and institutions’ needs for understanding researchers’ open research practices

Abstract:  A growing number of research-performing organisations (institutions) and funding agencies have policies that support open research practices — sharing of research data, code and software. However, funders and institutions lack sufficient tools, time or resources to monitor compliance with these policies.

  To better understand funder and institution needs related to understanding open research practices of researchers, we targeted funders and institutions with a survey in 2020 and received 122 completed responses. Our survey assessed and scored, (from 0-100), the importance of and satisfaction with 17 factors associated with understanding open research practices. This includes things such as knowing if a research paper includes links to research data in a repository; knowing if a research grant made code available in a public repository; knowing if research data were made available in a reusable form; and knowing reasons why research data are not publicly available. Half of respondents had tried to evaluate researchers’ open research practices in the past and 78% plan to do this in the future. The most common method used to find out if researchers are practicing open research was personal contact with researchers and the most common reason for doing it was to increase their knowledge of researchers’ sharing practices (e.g. determine current state of sharing; track changes in practices over time; compare different departments/disciplines). The results indicate that nearly all of the 17 factors we asked about in the survey were underserved. The mean importance of all factors to respondents was 71.7, approaching the 75 threshold of “very important”. The average satisfaction of all factors was 41.3, indicating a negative level of satisfaction with ability to complete these tasks. The results imply an opportunity for better solutions to meet these needs. The growth of policies and requirements for making research data and code available does not appear to be matched with solutions for determining if these policies have been complied with. We conclude that publishers can better support some of the needs of funders and institutions by introducing simple solutions such as: – Mandatory data availability statements (DAS) in research articles – Not permitting generic “data available on request” statements – Enabling and encouraging the use of data repositories and other methods that make data available in a more reusable way – Providing visible links to research data on publications – Making information available on data and code sharing practices in publications available to institutions and funding agencies – Extending policies that require transparency in sharing of research data, to sharing of code

How can publishers better meet the open research needs of funders and institutions?

“Publishers investing in simple solutions in their workflows can help to better meet the needs of funders and institutions who wish to support open research practices, research released this week by PLOS concludes.

Policies can be an effective solution for changing research culture and practice. A growing number of research-performing organisations (institutions) and funding agencies have policies that support open research practices — sharing of research data, code and software — as do publishers. Seeking to deepen our understanding of funder and institution needs related to open research, we surveyed more than 100 funders and institutions in 2020. We wanted to know if they are evaluating how researchers share data and code, how they are doing it, why they are doing it, and how satisfied they are with their ability to get these tasks done. Our results are available as a preprint along with an anonymised dataset….

Simple solutions more publishers could provide include:

Mandatory Data Availability Statements (DAS) in all relevant publications.
Across the STM industry around 15% of papers include a DAS. Since we introduced our data availability policy in 2014, 100% of PLOS research articles include a DAS.
Supporting researchers to provide information on why research data (and code) are not publicly available with their publications.
Time and again “data available on request” has been shown to be ineffective at supporting new research — and is not permitted in PLOS journals. 
Enabling and encouraging the use of data repositories.
Recommending the use of data repositories is a useful step, but making them easily and freely accessible — integrated into the publishing process — can be even more effective. Rates of repository use are higher in journals that partner closely with repositories and remove cost barriers to their use.
Providing visible links to research data on publications. Many researchers also struggle to find data they can reuse, hence PLOS will soon be experimenting with improving this functionality in our articles, and integrating the Dryad repository with submission….”

 

Innovation, entrepreneurship, promotion, and tenure

“Academic promotion and tenure (P&T) processes that typically prioritize faculty grants and publications can fail to fully assess and value entrepreneurial, innovative endeavors (1) that can produce the kind of societal impacts that universities are increasingly being called on to provide and that many faculty and students increasingly prioritize (2, 3). A more inclusive assessment of scholarship and creative activity to better recognize and reward innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) will require “broadening the bar” (4) to reflect evolving forms of faculty impact without diluting or increasing the requirements for advancement. Expanding what we value as scholarship can also help augment who we value as scholars and thus support a more innovative and diverse professoriate. We highlight work by the Promotion and Tenure–Innovation and Entrepreneurship (PTIE) coalition to promote policies and practices to recognize the impact of faculty I&E. We posit that this strategy can be broadly applicable (beyond I&E) to recognize the many and evolving dimensions along which faculty create societal impacts….

I&E—along with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); interdisciplinary team science; open science; community engagement; and others—represent examples of the many evolving forms of scholarship for the 21stcentury faculty member. That said, these types of scholarship can be overlooked or undervalued in the process by which universities review, reward, and advance the academic workforce (8, 11, 12). As these evolutions are incorporated into the fabric of higher education, the faculty evaluation process thus needs to be updated to reflect this changing landscape….”

Coalition Members | Promotion and Tenure – Innovation and Entrepreneurship (PTIE) Summit

“Coalition members are universities committed to being a part of the conversation with on this topic. Membership as a coalition member does not constitute endorsing specific solutions or promotion & tenure (P&T) policies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations listed below. By joining the non-binding PTIE Coalition, the representative(s) from the institution are committing to the following:

 

Stay engaged with us as we develop our program for the 2020 PTIE summit – providing suggestions and insights and serving as a sounding board for ideas.
Provide a representative from your institution who will attend the Virtual National Summit on September 16-18, 2020. 
Consider adopting the recommendations from the 2020 PTIE summit for expanding P&T guidelines on your own campus.
Allow the PTIE organizing committee to list your institution’s name and/or logo on a webpage as an institution (along with our other coalition institutions) committed to advancing I&E on their campus for their faculty and students. The webpage will be housed on our www.ptie.org website and will list that your participation in this coalition consists of these four bullet points listed here….”

Iowa State publishes more articles Open Access than Closed for the sixth consecutive year | University Library | Iowa State University

“For the sixth consecutive year, the majority of scholarly outputs coming from Iowa State University have been published Open Access (OA), making these works freely available for anyone in the world with an internet connection. This rise in researchers making their work open is in accordance with Iowa State University’s land-grant mission to create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place. Further, it reflects the growing support available for OA at Iowa State University. …”

Iowa State publishes more articles Open Access than Closed for the sixth consecutive year | University Library | Iowa State University

“For the sixth consecutive year, the majority of scholarly outputs coming from Iowa State University have been published Open Access (OA), making these works freely available for anyone in the world with an internet connection. This rise in researchers making their work open is in accordance with Iowa State University’s land-grant mission to create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place. Further, it reflects the growing support available for OA at Iowa State University. …”

Informationsplattform Open Access: Information on Open Access and copyright for universities of applied sciences

As part of the BMBF-funded open-access.network project, the Helmholtz Open Science Office, in cooperation with universities of applied sciences throughout Germany, has organised a total of 16 regional events for scientists in the workshop series “Introduction to Open Access and Copyright”. Between September 2020 and May 2021, participants in the online workshops were able to deepen their knowledge of Open Access to scientific publications and copyright law and discuss examples of use from their own practice. The management of the host universities also made use of the offer for advisory talks on topics such as the introduction of an OA guideline, the integration of OA into publication workflows or the establishment of a fund for OA publication fees at the university.

Statement on UMass Amherst’s Commitment to Open Scholarship | UMass Amherst Libraries

“The University of Massachusetts Amherst has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to supporting and advancing open scholarship with policy, guidelines, and investments in staffing, infrastructure, and scholarly content. In 2011 UMass Amherst signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Subsequently, the Faculty Senate endorsed an institutional Open Access Policywhich went into effect on July 1, 2016.  On behalf of the University, the Libraries implemented and manages an institutional repository, ScholarWorks, a platform for open access articles, books, conference proceedings, data, journals, podcasts, and more. Materials from the Special Collections and University Archives have been digitized and made openly available through Credo.The University and its Libraries provide financial support for open access publishing fees and open educational resource development. The Framework Principles for Provider Agreements guides a shift of the Libraries’ investments to those that are consistent with University’s and the Libraries’ mission and values to advance education and knowledge through open access and the widest possible use, reuse, analysis, discovery, curation, and preservation of scholarship. Libraries’ staff include specialists in archives, copyright, data management, open education, and scholarly communication, among many others. They are deeply engaged with campus faculty, researchers, editors, and reviewers to provide open access to research outputs and to develop open scholarship principles and practices. The University’s commitment extends further to its involvement with policy advocacy and education organizations such as Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI), Library Publishing Coalition, Open Education Network, and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).”