IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i2p20-d142734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Library-Mediated Deposit: A Gift to Researchers or a Curse on Open Access? Reflections from the Case of Surrey

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Antiope Daoutis

    (Library and Learning Support Services, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Maria De Montserrat Rodriguez-Marquez

    (Library and Learning Support Services, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

The University of Surrey was one of the first universities to set up an open access repository. The Library was the natural stakeholder to lead this project. Over the years, the service has been influenced by external and internal factors, and consequently the Library’s role in developing the OA agenda has changed. Here, we present the development and implementation of a fully mediated open access service at Surrey. The mediated workflow was introduced following an operational review, to ensure higher compliance and engagement from researchers. The size and responsibilities of the open access team in the Library increased to comply with internal and external policies and to implement the fully mediated workflow. As a result, there has been a growth in deposit rates and overall compliance. We discuss the benefits and shortcomings of Library mediation; its effects on the relationship between the Library, senior management and researchers, and the increasing necessity for the Library to lead towards a culture of openness beyond policy compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Antiope Daoutis & Maria De Montserrat Rodriguez-Marquez, 2018. "Library-Mediated Deposit: A Gift to Researchers or a Curse on Open Access? Reflections from the Case of Surrey," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:20-:d:142734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/2/20/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/2/20/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Vincent-Lamarre & Jade Boivin & Yassine Gargouri & Vincent Larivière & Stevan Harnad, 2016. "Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The MELIBEA score," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(11), pages 2815-2828, November.
    2. Jihyun Kim, 2010. "Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1909-1922, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anja Oberländer & Torsten Reimer, 2019. "Open Access and the Library," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-2, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Digital multimedia tools, research impact, stated and revealed preferences: a rejoinder on the issue of video abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 543-551, April.
    2. Laura Icela González-Pérez & María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya & Francisco José García-Peñalvo, 2021. "Improving Institutional Repositories through User-Centered Design: Indicators from a Focus Group," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    5. Wenqiang Fan, 2015. "Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1889-1909, December.
    6. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.
    7. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, February.
    8. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    9. Katie Wilson & Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang & Lucy Montgomery & Cameron Neylon & Rebecca N. Handcock & Alkim Ozaygen & Aniek Roelofs, 2022. "Changing the Academic Gender Narrative through Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Mikael Laakso & Juho Lindman & Cenyu Shen & Linus Nyman & Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 125-133, May.
    11. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2023. "Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2803-2818, May.
    12. Niels Taubert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Andre Bruns & Elham Iravani, 2023. "Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3601-3625, June.
    13. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Birgit Schmidt & Bianca Kramer, 2018. "Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, November.
    14. Joanna Chataway & Sarah Parks & Elta Smith, 2017. "How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 44-53.
    15. Shina Caroline Lynn Kamerlin & David J. Allen & Bas de Bruin & Etienne Derat & Henrik Urdal, 2021. "Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(3), pages 627-650, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:20-:d:142734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.