Open Access Reporting Meeting Mar 19 2015

From CASRAI

Attendance

   Chris Brown, Jisc
   Catherine Grout, Jisc
   Stuart Lawson, Jisc
   George Macgregor, University of Strathclyde
   Cecy Marden, Wellcome Trust (WT)
   Balviar Notay, Jisc
   Ben Ryan, EPSRC (Co-chair)
   Valerie McCutcheon, University of Glasgow (Co-chair)
   David Baker, Casrai
   Sheri Belisle, Casrai

Agenda

   Welcome and call to order
   Review action items from last meeting
   Main Discussion:
       Review comments and questions in the profile for finalisation (David)
       Are all key stakeholders represented?  What about publishers?
       Dissemination of profile and forward plan
           CASRAI blog posts
           Instruction as to how to get involved
           Summaries e.g. mailing, E2E blog (http://e2eoa.org/2015/02/20/casrai-uk-open-access-working-group-update/ ), other channels (focussed detail in addition to sharing fuller minutes as per: http://casrai.org/standards/subject-groups/open-access/meetings/february-19-2015-minutes#.VQBTZ-H3RAM
   Next steps
   Meeting schedule going forward
   AOB

Supporting Materials

   Previous minutes
   Draft data profile
   Charter/work plan
   E2E Workshop Feedback
   CASRAI Specification for OA Reporting_V3

Agreed Actions

   Send Jisc monitor spreadsheet sample to Casrai
       Action owner: Valerie
       Completed by: Done
   Adjust profile to represent resolutions from comments discussed in the meeting – decisions below in Discussion section.
       Action owner: Casrai
       Completed by:
   Consolidate remaining comments/issues into an easily-addressed format in order to resolve
       Action owner: Casrai
       Completed by: Mar 30
   Propose 3 more meeting dates/times to Chairs
       Action owner: Sheri
       Completed by: Mar 27
   Specification document review and comments
       Action owner: All
       Completed by: Mar 27

Discussion

Brought to order at 4:03 PM GMT.

Actions from last meeting. Element “refereed” still to be reviewed by chairs (material sent). Profile being updated for output to dictionary.

Open access licensing terms: what applies in the journal, applies to the accepted manuscript. Can’t assume it does. RIOXX does take account of this. Suggests that people note if the licence is not clear its described as all rights reserved. Pertinent to licensing fields (license ref) – already in RIOXX.

Action Item 3a – Comments Review

Casrai dictionary isn’t set in stone, outputs can be updated. If we know that there are some elements from RIOXX that haven’t been captured/integrated, it can be done either as we upload or immediately after so long a RIOXX doc is an input reference. For example, journal title and acceptance date. Link to RIOXX profile is available in GDoc. Free to read is also covered in RIOXX now.

Want to clear comments – either add element, adjust etc.

Inputs. Are we missing input references? Need Jisc Monitor as a use case? Not necessarily useful, as they’re looking at existing metadata and use cases – its more of a mapping. Suggest rather than hold up the input to the dictionary – include it as something to be revisited. Casrai profile is not an end point in a mapping exercise, its a collector of input requirements. Can be resolved in the coming months via another use case. Make sure Jisc Monitor is listed. What’s APC intake?

Use case 2 is very specific, the original use case meant for this open access group. Very important. This group might want to address it in the next phase. APCs handled in different ways at different institutions. Not always easy to find, and may have data from different sources. Definitely an important use case. Monitor spreadsheet drafted for the charities open access fund has info needed for use case 2. Is it possible in the next month? If there’s time, we can consider it, but if not it can be part of the next iteration. We need the documentation – if we can get it, it can be reviewed immediately. Action: Valerie can send spreadsheet sample to Sheri. Stuart has worked with APC spreadsheet with defined fields. Comment resolved.

New article decision inserted. Its a classification. List values in terms section. Definition can use some clarity because list values can mean different things to different orgs. Elements will have definitions as well; can be used to apply clarity. For RCUK, this can be calculated from other elements. If there is a free to read date (same as the publication date) and if there is a CC BY license, then by definition it’s gold. The value gold doesn’t have to be set, its automatic. We can refine definition from there. For the university, they can change over time. Is admin info for management and compliance, but not private. Will be able to see which use cases each element serve once they’re in the dictionary. Would this info be important early on? At the moment, when it’s published, but looking at trying to get it earlier. Comment resolved.

Publication type – format – what does it mean? What’s the intent? Labelling and defs can be adjusted once we know what the intent is. File format. And publication type is separate. Comment resolved. (Covered in RIOXX as well).

DOI. Identifiers have a pattern in the dictionary where whenever we’re identifying entities there are two fields, first is ID Type, based on selection, ID is expected. Will that pattern resolve the question? Type field should allow filtering so shouldn’t be an issue. We have DOI, PubMed ID, ISBN. Others? Identifier is mandatory in RIOXX – must contain an http URI which is an identifier for the resource – purpose is for direct ID. If the string of text is going to be a resolvable ID in the form of a URL, then assume machines can parse. That’s the intent. The definition should match this. Some IDs are just a string but aren’t resolvable. Should be looking for uniquely identifiable URIs at this point. Is it as easy to provide a URI? Will clarify that this element is a resolvable URI. DOI almost always points to a resource in a publisher’s site. What we’re talking about here is what would point to the copy of the published article in the repository (as opposed to version of record). Version of record would also be a resolvable link but to a different record. Definitions already edited to reflect this. Might need a little more. Comment resolved.

Article title. Was added via Post-2014 REF – in terms under consideration. All of the REF input list should be included in profile. Output type descriptors – needs to be married with RCUK. Title is in RIOXX too. Comment resolved.

License type URL. Covered by RIOXX terms. License Ref; mandatory; defined in NISO. If publisher hasn’t provided license ref, there are two alternatives: one that its under embargo, one that all rights reserved. Yes its CC BY if thats the license and should be machine readable from the license URL whether it is. Uniquely identifies license. Can see in RIOXX whether the publisher has provided a license ref. Should this be License URL? Type can be misleading. Goes in CrossRef record of an article. In cases where there is not a URL, can they answer with something else? Select from list? No, just use license URL (remove type). Comment resolved.

Manuscript ID/article reference – clarification? Sometimes different references from the publisher (before DOI). What are they? Can be solved in the coming weeks, when we see use. Owned by the publisher. Comment resolved.

We won’t finish today. Action: remaining items get packaged into a more concise document in order to make decisions – we could issue to the group for comment/answers in the next couple weeks.

Agenda Item 3b – Stakeholders

Should be addressed when next steps are determined. Engage with publishers when we’ve got a profile ready to be released to the community for discussion.

Agenda Item 3c – Forward plan.

It would be much easier to make a plan once we have stuff uploaded into the dictionary. Should also consider communications going forward.

Agenda Item 4 – Meeting Schedule

A few more meetings need to be scheduled. Action: Sheri will propose 3 more meeting dates to the chairs.

Agenda Item 5 – AOB

Specification document – any other thoughts besides what’s been commented? Action: deadline for commenting and resolving comments as soon as possible. End of day 27th. Hoping work can be commissioned to start by mid-April. Progress can be quick. That piece of work might be needed before this group puts something out for community comment. Some pressure to get a draft of this out.

Adjourned at 5:12 PM GMT.