V. Discussion
\label{v.-discussion}
-
Discuss pros and cons of deposit services vs. chorus and/or share.
(Michael)
-
Also, concerns about whether we could sustainably support this service
with existing staff. (Michael)
-
Whose role is it to help faculty comply?(Michael)
-
Adoption of the OA form by faculty (Hui: trend, use case and etc)
The deposit rate of articles written by OSU authors is around 45% as
revealed in an early study (citation to our 2015 OA paper), which
indicates a space of improvement in OA promotion. Previous studies have
shown that time and effort required for self-deposit has been identified
as a significant barrier for recruiting article from faculty
(citations). Two main issues related to this barrier are poorly designed
submission interface that is not intuitive (citation) and the time
required to create or extract content metadata (citation). These
findings motivate the development of the OA form, which is designed to
be simple to use and served as the de-facto interface for article
submission to ScholarsArchive@OSU. Since it was launched in March 2014,
there is a slow but clear trend that the OA form is adopting by more
authors. Although majority of the authors still submit their manuscripts
as email attachment, we observe a scenario that a dozen authors
voluntarily deposit articles that are not requested by the library using
the link to OA form included in the library’s article recruiting email
in year 2015 alone. This scenario is encouraging because authors all
prefered to send additional articles in email to library before the OA
form is available, and none of them ever used the submission interface
of ScholarsArchive@OSU. In result, the OSU Library recently adds one
sentence in the article recruiting email to explicitly promote the OA
form as the preferred deposit mechanism over email attachment.
-
Comparing OA Form vs. DSpace submission interface from user’s
perspective (Hui: Patti and Deanne’s comments, Future work)
The development of OA form is library’s continued effort of creating,
harvesting, and enhancing existing metadata for contents in IR (citation
1, 2). The metadata created for records in ScholarsArchive@OSU is mixed
with copyright related fields generated by library staff (e.g., license
types and embargo) and bibliographic fields primarily generated by
external sources (e.g., publishers or authors). When an article
manuscript is submitted as email attachment, the library staff has to
copy and paste the bibliographic metadata from its publisher version
into ScholarsArchive@OSU, which is not only labor intensive but also
open for human errors. One such example is that an article in Physics
has more than 100 people as co-authors and requires that the order of
these authors in IR should be the same as its publisher version
preciously. The OA form is designed to solve this metadata harvesting
issue by extracting record from CrossRef’s database by DOI and
automatically populate the corresponding Dublin Core qualifiers in IR.
Just getting articles from faculty remains the biggest challenge, but
also getting the version that we are allowed to deposit to federal
agencies. Its always a challenge promoting our services successfully. I
don’t think email is terribly effective communication tool any more and
think that faculty ignore them generally. So getting the word out is a
big challenge.
libraries go to more trouble than we’d like checking to make sure that
the articles we receive from faculty contain the required supplementary
data and are the accepted manuscript versions required by the agencies
rather than final copy-edited versions of record.