Page Comparison

Meeting time: 8:30 AM (EST) / 1:30 PM (BST) / 2:30 PM (CEST)

Meeting URL: https://openlibraryfoundation.zoom.us/j/82643780981 (Password required)

OA Working Group Wiki: Open Access SIG Home

Google Drive Folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HR1JyDkUeRE0kL1eBKcu6uIvcNcnn352?usp=sharing

...

Mailing list: folio-rm-oa@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org (Subscribe here selecting 'folio-rm-oa' list)

Housekeeping

• -

Agenda items

• We start discussion about eligibility / compliance criteria & tracking
  • Homework: Please respond to the corresponding questions in preparation for the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mYVw0_ZaM6WDJAmXb8FRopGONNga5mZm-oiL7NzjuzQ/edit?usp=sharing

Minutes

• O-S: we discussed what could the starting point be for the process?
  • publisher request
  • author request
  • publisher invoice
  • does this cover all starting points?
• O-S: in terms of process is there any difference between this starting points?
  • A-O: from just the invoice it's more difficult to get all the author information (authors, institutions); with author information it's easier to find relationships
  • C-L: authors can request funding in the repository; then change request to article ID; it's all in the repository; both, intended and already published articles
  • O-S: the form of the request more or less information available; apart of that, is the process the same?
  • C-L: not such a difference in the process
  • M-B: process is more dependend on the particular contract and not on the way the request comes in
• O-S: checking the corresponding author
  • O-S: affiliation, date of submission, or publishing
  • A-O: author should be affliate with the university while sbmission as well as publishing
  • O-S: if author is not affiliated with institution, means that the process is fully stopped?
    • A-S: some exeptions exist
    • M-B: date of checks would be good for other colleagues and for later transparency
    • C-L: would be good to have capabilty to capture text information during checking; e.g. URL of website
    • A-O: could be good to have check-boxes as well as free text e.g. for other reasons why the author are funded without beeing eligible
    • M-B: some order exist; but also shortcuts; depends where an author comes from
• O-S: so. it would be good to have an order suggested by the system but you don't want to be restricted on this order?
  • • group agreed
• O-S: email communication, what aspects should be tracked? should email be stored in Folio? what level of correspondence recording in FOLIO
  • C-L: would not need emails in FOLIO, but references to email communications
  • A-O: at some points it would make sense to store emails, since difficult to receive emails; elaborately to store but good to have the capability
  • O-S: an idea could be to connect SMPT email account but we don't want a; or copy/paste email text in FOLIO
  • F-M: on OA monitor an interview/poll revealed that there is a lot of email communication; OA Monitor things about storing them in the system 
• O-S: check of journal lists
  • A-O: sometimes authors ask if inst would fund in a specific journal?
  • O-S: how do you keep track of predatory journals
  • M-B: has a list of journals identified as predatory or not supported
• O-S: how often are there requests that are not recorded/tracked?
  • A-O: actually would make an encumbrance for planned publications
• O-S: what are the differences between book/chapters and articles? what are you looking for in respect to books?
  • A-O: duration on book publication is longer; specific contract are negotioated between author and publisher, sometimes with the help of the library; expenses are much higher
  • M-B: more strict quality criteria; with decision board
  • O-S: book chapters more similar to books or monographs?
    • M-B: monographs
    • A-O: in the middle, hard to get funded
• O-S: other types?
  • A-O: software and data could be a future issue 
• O-S: priority question: first focus on articles, then monographs, that other?
  • silent consensus
• O-S: article type / research vs. non-research; so we need a list of article types which is universal or custom list?
  • A-O: in favour of custom list because we do not know what will evolve in future
  • O-S: are you want to report on the article type?
  • F-M: There's the NISO list of article types: https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/tag-library/1.1/attribute/article-type.html
• O-S: license type
  • V-G: we can give advice or recommandations but it's not a criteria
  • O-S: doe's anyone check after publication (supposed and applied license)
  • V-G: yes, we check and communicate to publisher?
  • A-O: also check with SUB-G's metadata tool, sometimes more often
  • O-S: how to you track that you want to re-check something?
    • V-G: based on date
  • A-O: there are other then CC licenses; mostly for books; so list should be open for other license types
  • O-S: publisher specific licenses? could we alsoways link to a description of a website
    • V-G: have not had
    • M-B: had such publisher licenses; had to reject funding because no OA license
• O-S: submission dates, other important dates?
  • V-G: submission, acceptance, and publication dates are important

Attendees list