Simplifying OA Policy Compliance for Authors Through a Publisher- Repository Partnership

Authors : Mariya Maistrovskaya, Judy Hum-Delaney

In April of 2015, Canadian Science Publishing (CSP) in partnership with the University of Toronto Libraries launched an automated manuscript deposit service. Upon author’s opt-in, an automated workflow transfers their accepted manuscript from the publisher system into the University of Toronto research repository, TSpace, where it is made openly available with a reference to the final version on the journal website.

This free service is available to authors publishing their work in CSP’s NRC Research Press journals and is of particular interest to grant recipients looking to comply with the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications that came into effect in 2015.

This paper provides an overview of the partnership and the workflow that makes over 1,200 manuscripts openly available annually. It also shares the script that can be adopted by other libraries and publishers looking to provide automated deposit service to authors for the purpose of funder mandate compliance, green OA, or preservation.


Opportunities and Barriers of Indian Open Access Repositories

Author : Bijan Kumar Roy

Provides a brief overview of open access (OA) and highlights on growth of open access repository (OAR) movement all over the World including India. Highlights on some of the major initiatives taken by Indian government time to time in order to popularizing OARs movement throughout the country.

The main objective of the study is to discuss some of the open access self archiving policies as adopted by repositories registered in OpenDOAR database. The paper also discusses some of the problems of Indian OARs along with suggestions in the line of global recommendations.

URL : Opportunities and Barriers of Indian Open Access Repositories

Alternative location :

The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends

Authors : Elizabeth Gadd, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser

Examines SHERPA/RoMEO publisher open access (OA) policy information for 100 publishers over a 13 year period (2004–2016) to consider whether their size, type or country (UK or US) affected the development of their OA policy over time.

A publisher’s RoMEO colour code, whether they offered a Gold OA option, and the mean number of restrictions as to when, how and where papers may be self-archived, were all mapped. Kruskal–Wallis tests were run to assess whether the differences between their 2004 and 2016 positions were statistically significant.

Finds that the growth of Green and Gold OA policy approaches has not been evenly distributed amongst publishers with some significant differences amongst publishers of different size, types and country (UK and US).

Large commercial publishers are more likely to be allocated a RoMEO colour code, but at the same time place a high volume of restrictions as to where and how authors might self-archive. Small publishers are less likely to have a RoMEO green colour code, but the volume of restrictions they place on self-archiving are minimal.

University presses appear not to be engaging with either OA agenda to any considerable degree. UK and US publishers’ OA policies appear to be influenced by the national OA policy environment which, considering the global nature of the scholarly journals market, was more pronounced than might have been anticipated.

URL : The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends


Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Author : Ruth Kitchin Tillman


The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is.


This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known.

The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit.


Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month.

More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit.


From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely.


The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

URL : Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories



The arXiv of the future will not look like the arXiv

Authors : Alberto Pepe, Matteo Cantiello, Josh Nicholson

The arXiv is the most popular preprint repository in the world. Since its inception in 1991, the arXiv has allowed researchers to freely share publication-ready articles prior to formal peer review.

The growth and the popularity of the arXiv emerged as a result of new technologies that made document creation and dissemination easy, and cultural practices where collaboration and data sharing were dominant.

The arXiv represents a unique place in the history of research communication and the Web itself, however it has arguably changed very little since its creation. Here we look at the strengths and weaknesses of arXiv in an effort to identify what possible improvements can be made based on new technologies not previously available.

Based on this, we argue that a modern arXiv might in fact not look at all like the arXiv of today.


Qui dépose quoi sur Hal-SHS ? Pratiques de dépôts en libre accès en sciences humaines et sociales

Auteurs/Authors : Annaïg Mahé, Camille Prime-Claverie

Hal-SHS est la partie de la plateforme française HAL pour les sciences humaines et sociales où la production scientifique des chercheurs peut être rendue visible par le dépôt de notices de documents, et éventuellement librement accessible par le dépôt de fichiers associés.

Afin de comprendre qui dépose quoi, nous avons moissonné un corpus de 336 160 enregistrements à partir de l’entrepôt OAI de Hal-SHS correspondant aux notices déposées sur la plateforme depuis ses débuts, en 2002, jusqu’à 2016 inclus.

Les analyses statistiques effectuées sur ces données nous ont permis d’observer une forte implication des chercheurs dans l’auto-archivage et des différences disciplinaires qui se traduisent par des logiques de dépôts contrastées (communication scientifique directe, archivage, recensement et référencement).

Au final, l’étude fait apparaître que la plateforme est davantage utilisée en tant qu’outil de mise en visibilité de la production scientifique, avec le texte intégral comme une simple option, différemment appréciée selon les disciplines.