JISC Monitor, a webinar, an update and some commentary

I’ll try and keep this brief. An update on this will be forthcoming on the JISC Monitor blog and the audio of the webinar will also be made available. For details on the project so far visit the blog here and the space on GitHub here. Aims of the project are to meet JISC requirements on monitoring open access/APC expenditure using a format that is achievable and makes best use of data capture available

Monitor so far

There are two parts to this project:

1. Registry of all UK research publications
2. APC administration system at institutional level

Outcomes of the project so far include:

• GUIDE ‘Getting useful IDs early’ 
• Best ways of capturing and storing data, e.g. when is it available in the overall ecosystem
• Ways of improving data over time

Monitor Publications Registry (Richard Jones of Cottage Labs)

A prototype is available for online testing here.

So far Monitor has been working with aggregated data provided by Stuart Lawson through the JISC APC spreadsheet. The prototype allows you to break down expenditure by publisher/publication and this can be limited to institutional level. You can see the average APC price as well as min/max/avg spent against other institutions.

This raises some interesting questions like why is the average price not consistent across different institutions and this might help form a basis for discussion at future negotiations.
In the short term they are focusing on three reports that they believe will be of most interest and use to stakeholders:

1. Expenditure by publisher
2. Expenditure by institution
3. Gold publications and compliance

Spend across institutions

Min/Max and Avg APC Article Cost

This data has been applied to the Sherpa FACT API for compliance information. The preconditions for checking this data require a FACT funder (RCUK/COAF) along with a publication. This has already revealed a large number of compliant green options available with these publications.

APC administration

Workflow

Lots of work is being done in terms of scoping requirements and identifying processes. The project is primarily centred on tracking OA journal publications. So far there is no software but a working specification that should address some of the problems facing administrators in managing OA publishing grants.

The scope of the project is to:

• Ensure information from publication of open access outputs are being captured correctly
• Ensure APC funding is being used appropriately
• Ensure appropriate decisions are being made
• Internal/External reporting, requiring data output in a flexible manner
• Outputs other than journal articles

This flow diagram describes the overall process of publication, paying for publication and identifies points of data collection. It was noted that in practice administrators often arrive in this workflow at different points, e.g. when the author requires an invoice to be processed for payment.

Conceptual data model

This conceptual data model illustrates how this workflow can be captured. The dark blue tables illustrate that academic output (and associated cost) is at the heart of the data captured by the system. Other tables are designed to handle other associated administration tasks concerning payment

The core requirements are that the system is centred on outputs and tasks. Data capture and entry must be easy and where possible make use of local finance systems, Cross ref, ORCID, Sherpa etc. The system must be locally configurable to meet requirements at institutional level.

Wireframes

Numerous prototype wireframes for user interaction (forms etc) have been developed and will be made available soon. This shows a list of APCs. All attributes can be used to filter and sort this list as required. It’s a list of academic output that has been submitted to the system.

Filter and sort list as required

This screen illustrates an ability to track progress against tasks

Note tabs which breakdown administration

Going into a record shows a breakdown of tasks by authors/article/funding/finance/compliance. This was influenced by in-house systems developed by UCL and Imperial, as well as other use cases and workshops in the specification development. They are also following the ‘End-To-End’ and ‘Good Practice’ JISC pathfinders.

My comments

Monitor Publications Registry

The data this is based on suggests a focus on COAF and RCUK funders, although I understand that HEFCE is also a key consideration. Sherpa FACT, however, is only applicable to COAF and RCUK so it's not yet clear how the project will make use of ROMEO data in order to monitor REF compliance. Surely repository information will also be a requirement here?

Average cost does not appear to distinguish between use of prepayment accounts, memberships or Nesli2 discounts. The system 

The method of aggregation is not yet clear. Where and how will this data be sourced? How will they deal with duplication? How will GUIDE be used?

APC administration

The framework for the data capture seems sound but it's not clear how use of external data sources will be used to standardise the process (list of publishers/funders etc). Unclear how system would interact with internal college finance systems for payment.

Recording negotiation that sometimes goes on between authors/publishers/librarians for compliant archiving of papers into required subject repositories?

Will funder entity also include subj repository requirements? Can the system check if these have been met or assist with this aspect of compliance?