Writing a data management plan (DMP) can be quite daunting, particularly if you haven’t had to write one before. At Exeter we already have a research data management website with guidance on writing DMPs. We also offer a service where we can advise researchers on draft DMPs.
In addition to these existing services we have now written a number of funder specific guides to help you write your DMP. These guides are adaptations of those previously created by the data.bris team at the University of Bristol.
We will update the guides from time to time to keep them up to date but if you have any feedback on them please feel free to email us at email@example.com.
Taylor & Francis now allows authors to post the accepted version of a published paper on their personal or departmental web site without an embargo. The accepted version is the post-peer review paper – the new policy does not apply to the published version, use of this is not permitted.
This posting is allowed after publication and a DOI to the published version should be included.
This may seem like a step in the right direction but lengthy embargoes are still in place for papers submitted to an institutional repository or other subject-based repositories such as arXiv. The same policy of embargoes applies to social networking sites such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley.
Funders require deposit in a stable environment such as that offered by established institutional or subject repositories – uploading a published paper to a personal web site will not make a researcher compliant with funder policy he/she will still need to deposit the same version to a repository – this time with an embargo of possibly 18 months. Could get confusing.
I’m sure researchers will find this new policy useful but those who support researchers will need to ensure a clear message about what constitutes ‘funder compliance’ in terms of the availability of published works gets across.
All peer-reviewed research papers that have been wholly or partially funded by the NIHR should now be made immediately open access by paying the journal publisher a fee at the time of publication, known as ‘gold’ open access.
This new statement will affect all papers submitted for publication after 1 April 2014. It includes review articles, final reports and executive summaries.
There will be a period of transition but NIHR expects full compliance in four years. Revised policy and further guidance will be issued over the summer.
View the current policy:
Existing policy states:
“For any research supported by DH or NIHR funds, the DH and the NIHR expects all research costs (including publishing costs) to be budgeted for when the research is commissioned. Therefore, the DH or NIHR will not routinely fund additional publishing costs separately. However, if a researcher can demonstrate that the whole of the DH or NIHR award has been used for the purposes of the intended research and that the budget was correctly managed, the DH or NIHR may consider additional support on a limited ad hoc basis.”
Please ensure when putting a grant application together that you include all expected costs of paid open access publishing. The average cost per paper is around £1.8k but can be much higher. For example, to publish in BMJ costs £3k + VAT.
To get an idea of specific costs of publishing in your journal of choice use SHERPA/RoMEO, a web site that makes details of journal/publisher open access policies available from a single, searchable interface. SHERPA/FACT allows you to find out whether your chosen journal is compliant with selected funder policy (if it’s MRC compliant it will be NIHR compliant). The Open Access Team can advise if you’re uncertain.
NIHR has not as yet noted a particular licence requirement but it’s almost certain that they will start to ask for the CC-BY licence to be attached to published journal articles to come in line with other funders of medical research, such as MRC and Wellcome.
If you have any queries about the policy please contact your research support team or the Open Access Team.
We will post further details of the new policy as we receive them.
In April 2014 HEFCE released its new policy on open access in the post-2014 REF. While there are still some areas that are a little unclear or may require some new workflows, the policy is on the whole very good news, favouring the unpaid ‘green’ route to open access via deposit in a repository and outlining some genuinely useful exceptions.
The main points are summarised as follows:
Outputs covered by the policy
The policy applies to:
- Journal articles and
- Conference proceedings with an ISSN
- Accepted for publication after 1 April 2016
The policy does not cover:
- Monographs and other long-form publications (e.g., book chapters)
- Conference proceedings with an ISBN (i.e., published as part of a book)
- Non-text outputs
- Data underpinning research
- Output types requiring confidentiality (e.g., for security or commercial reasons)
In order for an output to be eligible for the REF the following must apply:
- The output must be deposited in a repository (institutional, shared service or disciplinary) – you can use Exeter’s repository, ORE
- The output must be deposited as soon after acceptance as possible and no later than three months after acceptance
- The output deposited should be the accepted version (following peer review)
- The accepted version may be replaced at a later date with the published version where this is permitted by the publisher
- Pre-prints (the version prior to peer review) are not acceptable
- The deposited item should contain sufficient information about the content (metadata) to facilitate its discovery via search engines such as Google
- Where an accepted version is augmented or replaced by a published version, the same metadata requirements will apply
- The full text of outputs should be fully open, i.e., PDF security settings should enable searching of the text, reading and downloading
- CC-BY-NC-ND licences are strongly recommended but not mandatory.
- RCUK/Wellcome-funded researchers will still need to use the CC-BY licence
- Outputs deposited without a publisher embargo on access should meet all requirements as soon as possible and no later than one month after deposit
- Outputs deposited with an embargo should meet all requirements as soon as possible and no later than one month after the embargo period expires
- The embargo period starts from the point of publication (includes online publication)
- 12 months for REF Main Panel A and REF Main Panel B (http://www.ref.ac.uk/panels/unitsofassessment/)
- 24 months for REF Main Panel C and REF Main Panel D
- RCUK-funded research remains as before:
- STEM/M ( MRC, NERC, BBSRC, etc.): six months
- HASS (AHRC, ESRC, etc.): 12 months
- Wellcome Trust: six months
There is a range of exceptions that can be read in the full policy, but include the following:
- The researcher was not employed by a UK HEI at the time of submission for publication
- It would be unlawful to deposit, or request deposit of, the output
- Deposit of the output would present a security risk
- The item contains third-party copyrighted material for which permission to publish on open access could not be obtained (within the given timescales or ever)
- The publication requires an embargo period that is longer that what is recommended but is the most appropriate journal for the researcher
- The publication does not permit any form of open access but is the most appropriate journal for the researcher
- A closed deposit will be required with sufficient metadata for discovery
It’s still very early days but if you do have any questions or concerns at this point do take them to your DoR who can make sure they go forward to College research strategy groups.
General information about open access and ORE can be found on the Library’s open access website.