Lessons in Open Access Compliance for Higher 
Education (LOCH)
Dominic Tate
Scholarly Communications Manager
University of Edinburgh
Who We Are…
• University of Edinburgh
– Large, research-intensive Russell Group University 
with 30,000 students and 12,000 staff
• Heriot-Watt University 
– One of the top UK universities for business and 
industry with 11,800 students in 150 countries
• St Andrews University 
– Scotland’s oldest university founded in 1413.  
Research-intensive with over 25% of turnover from 
research grants and contracts. 
Approach
• Managing Open Access payments, (including a review of 
current reporting methods and creation of shareable 
spreadsheet templates for reporting to funders),
• Using PURE as a tool to manage Open Access 
compliance, verification and reporting,
• Adapting institutional workflows to pre-empt Open 
Access requirements and make compliance as seamless 
as possible for academics.
What we are working on…
• A functional specification for PURE, to ensure 
compliance with the OA requirements for the 
next REF,
• Baseline case studies to review the OA landscape 
at each partner institution,
• First look at revising workflows and 
communications in light of REF requirements. 
Outputs to date…
• St Andrews Deposit Requirements Checklist
• Edinburgh – Implementation planning questionnaire
• Edinburgh first draft web content
• St Andrews Publication – lean exercise
• ALL – Open Access Specification for PURE
Towards REF2020
The University of Edinburgh’s Approach to 
Open Access Requirements in the Next REF
Dominic Tate 
Scholarly Communications Manager 
Library & University Collections
Scope & Timeline
• Policy applies to all journal articles & conference 
proceedings accepted for publication from April 1st 
2016
• We need to ensure that we are 100% compliant 
before April 2016 to ensure that every researcher 
can select any publication for inclusion in the next 
REF.  
– There may be extra credit available in “Research 
Environment” for earlier implementation. 
Deposit Requirements
• Must be deposited in an institutional repository 
(PURE) or subject repository (e.g. arXiv or PubMed 
Central)
• DEPOSIT – IMMEDIATELY ON ACCEPTANCE by the 
publisher (no later than three months after this)
• Researchers should deposit the 'author’s final 
version' or 'post-print' which can be replaced with 
the final published PDF version at a later date.
Access Requirements
• Must be made Open Access at the earliest possible 
opportunity
• If you publisher requires an Open Access embargo, 
then this can be respected.  In reality – OA likely to 
happen at a date 6 months+ after publication 
• Normal maximum embargo is 24 months (panels C 
& D), though some exceptions may apply. 
Implications
• “Any output that falls within the scope of this policy 
and is submitted to the post-2014 REF but does not 
meet the requirements without a valid exception will 
be given an unclassified score and will not be 
assessed.”
• From April 2016, when the policy comes into force,  
there will be no scope for retro-active compliance so 
we must ensure everyone is aware of the 
requirements ASAP. 
What are we doing?
• The Scholarly Communications Team is working with 
College Research Offices and Schools:
– Local support staff being recruited
– Existing administrative staff being given training
– Project plans being implemented for each School
• Scholarly Communications acting as a central 
co-ordinating authority for the University 
– Liaising with HEFCE
– Co-ordinating development of PURE
– Jisc Pathfinder “best practice” project
Our message to researchers…
• Researchers must take action immediately on being 
notified of acceptance by a publisher.  Either:
– Log in to PURE, create a record and upload the correct file
OR
– Email your acceptance email and the file to the 
appropriate support email (TBC)
• Researchers must contact us if they are unsure of 
how to do this or how the policy affects your 
publication.  
– Scholarly Communications Team OR in-School support 
Devolved Staffing Model
• Central Support for the Project in Scholarly 
Communications Team (Library)  - 4 FTE
• Humanities & Social Sciences
– OA Advisor (1 FTE) with support from temporary support 
staff (2.5FTE)
• Medicine & Veterinary Medicine
– One OA Advisor (1 FTE) with deposit made by local 
administrators (hard to quantify accurately 2 or 3 FTE?)
• Science & Engineering
– Support from existing School support staff (maybe 2 FTE?)
What is going well?
• We have undertaken LOADS of outreach over the 
last few months
• We have spoken to most Research Directors about 
the new policy
• Most Schools have had a visit about the policy 
• Most of the Schools now have local plans in place
• The new technical requirements are defined and in 
development
What do we need to improve?
• We still have not issued an all-staff email about the 
policy – this is long overdue
• We sometimes forget to highlight the benefits of 
Open Access
• We always need to plan each meeting to make sure 
we get the best out of every opportunity to talk to 
researchers
• Validation workflow needs to be improved
• Reporting needs to be improved
• Many administrators need more training
Top Tips?
 Make sure University Senior Management are aware 
of the policy and its implications (and bonus points 
for early adoption!)
 Formulate a plan and treat this like a project
 Make sure you have adequate staffing resource and 
that responsibilities are clear
 Provide clear, simple guidance for researchers
 Review progress regularly and don’t be afraid to 
make changes
www.ed.ac.uk/openaccess