EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive

See the EPrints wiki for instructions on how to join this mailing list and related information.

Message: #08350

< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First

Re: [EP-tech] Eprints-tech Digest, Vol 145, Issue 14

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Southampton. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Lindsay

 

Thanks for this that’s really useful – I had a look at that UKCorr thread from the archive and the consensus seems to be to count gold as in-scope.  I also can’t find anything gin the guidance that says gold should be out of scope.

 

I wonder if the refcc plugin should have its compliant / outofscope tests updated?

 

So add the check for hoa_gold into the sub for ‘run_test_Compliant’ to show gold as compliant, and remove that check from ‘OUT_OF_SCOPE_reason’

 

Not sure if that’s the most efficient way or this would have knock on effects elsewhere.  Or indeed if others are convinced this should be done! 

 

Regards

Mick

 

From: eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk <eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Behalf Of Lindsay Wood via Eprints-tech
Sent: 21 October 2020 14:20
To: eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [EP-tech] Eprints-tech Digest, Vol 145, Issue 14

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Southampton. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Mick,

 

Just quickly, I recognise this conundrum, it came up briefly on UKCoRR not so long ago. REF guidance I am sure used phrase 'Out Of Scope'/not in scope for Gold at one point, but when I looked for it, it had changed. If you exclude Gold you could swing percentages alot for a bioscience UoA, which is helped by having access to that funding stream. I think the ISSN logic may be an optional flag? I'm calculating like the latter and using additional external logic/cross referencing. I think the plugin needs a refresh against current policy and validation (which is changing nationally). REF CC and REF Support plugin don't always seem to match. The exports need to match current policy specification, also it exports compliance for output REF types other than C & D (journal article & conference contributions). Different repositories seem to be on varying versions, bug fixes and customisations.

 

Best,

 

Linds

 

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 12:00, <eprints-tech-request@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

Send Eprints-tech mailing list submissions to
        eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        eprints-tech-request@ecs.soton.ac.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
        eprints-tech-owner@ecs.soton.ac.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Eprints-tech digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Ref Plugin OutOfScope and calculating not compliant       figures
      (Michael Eadie)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:59:44 +0000
From: Michael Eadie <Michael.Eadie@glasgow.ac.uk>
Subject: [EP-tech] Ref Plugin OutOfScope and calculating not compliant
        figures
To: "eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-ID:
        <LO2P265MB1518FF6B02F23E2875BEA398A51F0@LO2P265MB1518.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM" target="_blank">LO2P265MB1518FF6B02F23E2875BEA398A51F0@LO2P265MB1518.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi all

I was wondering if any Ref Plugin users on the list can help us out with this...

We are calculating our percentage of compliance with REF Open Access policy to make sure we're below the 5% threshold.

The REF Plugin marks gold open access items as 'OutOfScope' (along with articles and conference proceedings accepted before 1/4/2016, or with no ISSN, or other item types).

The REF Guidance states that each unit can submit up to 5% 'in-scope' items that do not meet the requirements.

So should the denominator we use to get our percentage exclude gold items because the plugin says they are 'OutOfScope' or do we include them in the number because they are effectively 'compliant' (and give ourselves a bit more leeway?).

The latter seems the fairest to me - but that then leads to how other plugin users highlight which 'OutOfScope' items are in fact gold/compliant when using the Submission System report to send off to Research England?

Any help much appreciated!
Thanks
Mick


Mick Eadie
Research Information Management Officer

Direct Line: +44 (0) 141 330 6294

Room 509
University of Glasgow Library
Hillhead Street
Glasgow
G12 8QE

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20201020/310e20b1/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Eprints-tech mailing list
Eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech


End of Eprints-tech Digest, Vol 145, Issue 14
*********************************************


 

--

Mr Lindsay Wood

e-Repositories Manager, University of Warwick