Play the webinar
Play the webinar
Register for the webinar
January 26, 2023
With speakers from Figshare, Symplectic and Loughborough University, we cover how specially created workflows and infrastructures can support REF submissions, and the benefits of having them in place.
During the session, we cover:
- How Figshare’s complete repository solution can support your REF process, with complete control over all your outputs and the provision of key usage metrics.
- How Symplectic Elements worked directly with the community to develop specialised functionality to help lessen the administrative burden with bespoke REF submission preparation and management functionality.
Please note that the transcript was generated with software and may not be entirely correct.
0:04Hi everyone, and welcome to our webinar today. We're just gonna give it a few more minutes for people. Well, a few more seconds for people to get online and then we'll kick off the webinar. Just to check that, everyone can hear me all right. If you, if it's coming across correctly, then please put in the chat or the Q&A box now and I have all the presenters here and I think they'll probably let me know if they can't hear me but all escaped the smiling.
0:33There's already quite a few people online, but I will just wait till we're officially at go time.
0:39Before introducing everyone, and we'll get going.
0:43Are all clear here. Thank you, Vicki. Lovely.
0:51OK, so it's two o'clock. We will kick off. So welcome to Navigating the Raf Workflows and Infrastructure to support the community eyes with fiction syntactic elements out of Boy Scouts Cau from Le ... University. And I'm Laura, I'm part of the Fixture Team, but I'm just going to be going over the housekeeping, and I'll be moderate moderating the Q&A throughout the webinar as well.
1:17So, all attendees are in listen only mode, But obviously you can utilize the Q&A box or the chat function anytime. I will be watching with Eagle Eyes. But we'll have a section Q and A at the end.
1:31But if there's anything really straightforward that I can answer throughout, I will do via by that books, we're recording this session. And it's going to be shared with everyone as soon as possible. Usually in the next day or so as if you have to drop off at any point not to worry you can catch from the action another time. So without further ado, I'm going to pass over to off fast present, which is Adrian crop from fixture will then hear from manya buchan from syntactic, and then we'll hear from Garrett Co from left.
2:03So, over to you, Adrian.
2:09Good afternoon, everybody. Nice to have so many people on the call. The first part of this presentation, I will take us through how feature helps to support the next slide, please.
2:23So this is what I'm going to cover this afternoon. I'll give you a really quick overview of what picture isn't does.
2:29We'll have a look back at ren 21. And what some of our current future, parliaments have to say about Picture having the environment statement, and then a cheeky look ahead to the next iteration of Red.
2:42Next slide, please.
2:46So, a fixture is a repository for all research outputs. And some of the key features are on the left hand side, several published items on picture PID, a DOI or handle.
2:58We have a really nicely structured metadata schema, which can be enriched with custom metadata.
3:03And both of those things go to help make items on picture, on boat and accessible, in terms of re-use ability, The default license, you see, C, B, Y, zero picture, and we can accommodate other licenses, as well.
3:18In terms of Interoperability, as well as our really nice bidirectional integration mixing black development, where people, lots of systems and platforms across the research support infrastructure, not least, dimensions, or metric, or citation data matrix.
3:38Next slide, please.
3:42So, because I really can't support all outputs across all disciplines, you can have 27 item types on picture than they are comfortably, comfortably accommodate all different outputs you can see on here.
3:55So, not only can you get all of this into picture in a really nice way, but when you think of bitshares the results that can be harvested by things like elements, becomes a really rich and powerful tool in terms of reporting.
4:08I'm sure ... can talk a little bit more.
4:11Next slide, please.
4:15Not only can you get lots of lovely stuff into picture, but you can share that with the public as well.
4:20So, this is an example items previewed in the browser. That's on the top left, on Arts Output, which is a music video, top Ryan Lizzie, three-d. model of a ....
4:33Behind those lurking behind this is a music school. At the bottom left, we've got an online report, in the middle, you can see one item with lots of files attach, a couple of read needs and some GIS files, and then the bottom left, we've got the most traditional journal, contribution.
4:51Next slide, please.
4:55As well as all those things, you get these extra features, too. So you can have an institution, you define domain and branding custom metadata. And the terms and conditions remain the institution's sites.
5:07It's our self revelation. It's your data and your terms, as mentioned.
5:12DOI's really secure, we've got ISO 2701 certification, and we can handle public and private storage servers open as possible, as close as necessary.
5:25You've got the ability to preview files up to 1200 file types in the browser, so no need for a middleware, and configurable workflows on permissions and necessity. Next slide, please.
5:41So, let's go into the picture on the right and move on.
5:46So in the last graph, per team, partner institutions mentioned picture in their environment statements.
5:55I think that number, and the diversity of institutions really says something about the value placed on picture when it comes to supporting the research process and direct return.
6:09Next slide, please.
6:12I thought it would be healthy just to remind ourselves of some of the rec requirements. So to speak to some of these in terms of discoverability.
6:21With this, the rich metadata, which helps things be find go, but also were indexed by Google, Google Scholar, Google data, data citation index dimensions, to mention a few.
6:33In terms of an outcome presentation of a metadata record, let's see an example of one of those shortly.
6:38Anybody with an Internet connection can access picture?
6:41There's no paywall to re download, preview any of that content. And as already mentioned, we have the Creative Commons licensing already there.
6:50Next slide, please.
6:54So this is what a couple of our partners said about Future In the Environment Statements for the University of Sussex. I really like the way the European this passage actions and openness engagement are central to our research coach.
7:06It really putting the human in there.
7:09The machine of what the revenue through the blood, sweat, and tears that go into, creating the right and wrote the highlighted about fiction, hopefully, making similar documents fantasia less less, for instance, ability to increase discoverability and to encourage re-use sir. Next slide, please.
7:27If we take a, an example record from picture, this time from the university of Leicester, this is what our metadata record, it looks like, system and are labeled up a few features that I think helps to speak to some of those.
7:44Advantage is, we've got the title there, underneath the Handle Label.
7:48You can see really rich abstract, and then there's some examples of custom metadata that too.
7:55In terms of re-use, you can see, the license is explicitly linked to the terms governing the re-use, and then again within the Title Highlights next site, obviously site things you can download, you can share and embed as well.
8:10A couple of other things that outweigh somebody remiss not to mention you see the time-stamps are We can see when this was added to the repository and that this is comfortably within the mandatory deposit period from when it was published.
8:24And also we can see that there's a handle for this offer accepted manuscripts.
8:31Version of record is pointed to on the publishes homepage on the publisher's website.
8:37Next slide, please.
8:40Another example of a really stunning endorsement, I think, a picture was from Cardiff Metropolitan University, you liked their data repository so much that post referendum on, They decided to replace what their current while that past solution was to go for full institutional repository powered by picture.
8:58And part of that reasoning, Most Fisher has the ability to provide open, closed, unmoderated access to outputs.
9:08To give you an example, if you move the slide, please.
9:12What I've got is the upload phone to get items into picture.
9:18Obviously, if you are using big chevron documents together, you would probably do positive elements.
9:23But this is just to give you an idea of some of the functionality in terms of the access.
9:28On the left-hand side, and in the highlighted serco, there's an option that, to add, just a metadata record, to restrict access to the file, but still make the output discoverable.
9:40Highlighted on the right-hand side, there's the ability to impose an embargo.
9:44And you can do that in a defined period of time, where you can use the date select next to it and that allows you to impose embargo until a specific date.
9:56You can add files only, or you can have files on metadata, so completely removing it from, from any public access.
10:05Can also have a custom embargo swap. So you could argue that nobody can access or he could restrict my IP range or by Google or faculty.
10:15Then underneath that, you can see there's always some rationale given for why the embargo is in place.
10:21Furthermore underneath the rationality, if you squint a little bit, you can probably see request access to files, sir.
10:29No matter how you've restricted access, you can always skip the end user, the ability to communicate with the institution to request access.
10:37Underneath that, we have generate private link.
10:40So without publishing to the repository, depositors are able to share, share, share, and output, and importantly, that can revoke access to that as well and give them time.
10:53If not, we can reserve a DOI as well.
10:55So we can comply with journal rules and regulations around providing Dubai's.
11:03Just on that note, just above the massive chaperone integration that you can see that we selected this within picture, within our environment without having to leave it.
11:16We can look what the general policies are in terms of chaperone, which helps with compliance levels without having to leave the environment.
11:26Make sure that this record is compliant.
11:29Next slide, please.
11:34So in summary, future makes research discoverable in a way that complies with access and discoverability requirements.
11:42Share integrates with elements, and this feeds into the Assessment module.
11:46You should support public access to research, as well as embargoes and profit sharing.
11:51Next slide, please.
11:54Just a quick note to say that we are ... compliant, client compliance requirements, though and lots of green ticks up, the link at the bottom of the table.
12:04So, you can go and have a look at buying more detail should you wish to.
12:08Next slide, please.
12:13OK, so, this is a cheeky look ahead to the next Ray is very cheeky because I have no crystal ball.
12:18And I'm not privileged to any information about the next requirement book.
12:23At the top four bullet points are all things that were excluded from the Open access requirements in Reck 21.
12:31What I'm saying today is potentially, they may well be included in the next iteration, that last bullet point around making outputs accessible to panel members to be the host repository, but some talk about that beginning a referendum on which sort of went away quite quickly.
12:47Right, welcome back.
12:50Hopefully just that quick whistle, stop tour fiction's, Sinead, O'Connor and comfortably accommodate and the potential upcoming.
12:59Going to access requirements and the clock is ticking up into 2 20, 27, 28 depending on announcements. But I will leave things where I look forward to your questions and I'll pass them into Monday.
13:21Next slide, please.
13:27Thanks. So just assuming no questions have come in, I'll just jump straight in and talk about the support for F 2021 and it was provided by ... Elements. So my name is Matthew ..., I'm Senior Product Manager on the elements in one of my responsibilities. Was developed, delivering the rough 2021 functionality. So, working with community to, Yeah, to deliver this. So, next slide, please.
13:55So, just a bit of background, How did we approach this? Because there are many ways to do so.
14:00So the first was to take our existing kind of generic standard functionality for which we have around assessment, Open Access Monitor, so build upon those to deliver the right.
14:12There's very bespoke and specific functionality and the benefits there is that you can continue the assessment process in terms of nominating outputs for review, Getting those review scores, Getting a sense of which ones might be included in a submission without needing to know the specific requirements at that time. So, you can progress that can be happening right now, that institutions are undertaking these kind of annual exercises to put outputs for doing that review process.
14:37You don't kinda get away from these big spikes of activity that it's, you know, more of a constant constant state.
14:45So building upon that existing standard functionality, we works closely with community to both confirm submission requirements, identifying functionality that's required, and discuss potential solutions. Because a lot of times, there's more than one way to do a certain thing.
15:00Then to prioritize development, because there was a lot of times, you know, there's no point delivering the submission functionality prior to delivering the ability to attribute outputs to individuals, so so working through that prioritization with the community, we had a rough steering committee that was comprised of 11, 11 institutions, a variety of sizes, and disciplines to ensure that we had those different perspectives on how submissions are being managed, and being prepared. And then we also offered, every 3 to 4 months following each release, we offer address specific workshops for any clients using the functionality, And there, we demonstrated the new functionality.
15:37And that release gave an update on the roadmap, so that clients could make plans going forward, which releases they'd like to take. And then also gather feedback on functionality that had already been delivered.
15:49There was also a ref specific space in our Elements Support environment, well, over 50 articles on sort of how to do certain things, and how the system behaves. Very saying, it's also the development roadmap, release notes, et cetera, are all available there.
16:05And we also, this time, which was a big improvement over F 2014, direct communication with the ref team at research England. In the past, there had been a reluctance I felt, or Research England, to deal directly with vendors. And I think, you know, as the sector has gotten more and more to that way of less sort of bespoke in house developed systems.
16:27That research England, the rep team were very willing to communicate with us directly, which was super. Because that just enabled us to have that direct line to raise issues if we've seen issues with integration, between elements, for example, and the rest submission system, where we could raise those issues directly.
16:44Then, also we have a lot of expertise within our team. So don't enter to toot my own horn, but but, yeah. So I used to work at the University of Edinburgh where I manage the R E 2008 and 2014 submissions. And then we have a lot of experience on the development team here at Elements, and leveraging that to deliver a solution that works for institutions really key.
17:06Next slide, please.
17:11So you probably can't see this very well, but it was just an idea to give you a sense of the model that we employed for the ref to the research outputs, element of the submission. And this was delivered over time, so it wasn't all in one big bang, but as you can see from this, that we're building on that generic standard assessment functionality to then deliver the bespoke ref functionality. and the model was very much like whittling things down. So, you have your sort of all potentially eligible outputs, anything published during the census period.
17:46Getting those down to those that have been selected for submission, getting those down to those that have been accepted. So, IE, those that meet, for example, the unit's quality threshold and then of that pool, which of those are attributed to reform researchers. So whittling things down and we had a whole process of available to support that process.
18:05Next slide please.
18:10So the functionality that was supported within elements, the key areas, ref one, research staff ref to research outputs, all submitted within units of assessment, supported by appropriate user permissions and roles.
18:23So something key there, you can see, they're grayed out on the other submission elements or F three impact, the environment indicators and the environment statement. Those were not included in the functionality that we offered. That was in consultation with clients, That very much, the focus was to be on an F one and F two.
18:39And in that space, we aimed not only to support constructing and making the submission, but also to help easily identify and rectify data issues. So, you know, that's a big part of things, and then also being able to understand the composition of each unit submission. Because I think sometimes you can, you know, you don't get an opportunity to take that step back, and go, What does this actually look like, How does it compare to what we're saying about ourselves in the environment statement? We have dashboards, available, support without reporting, et cetera.
19:06Next slide, please.
19:10So on the units of assessment, each unit could be configured, depending on requirements there.
19:16Heard me, So, and you could, we supported multiple submissions, being able to create research groups for each unit of assessment, capturing the ref six B reduction, indicating, which open access policy is relevant to that unit, Obviously, with a different embargo period that were permitted across the different panels and also, the ability to lock a unit.
19:36So depending on how your institution manage it centrally, if it's a very devolves process.
19:42But some institutions, when it gets to a certain point when you want to lock the units out, they can still view the content, but they can modify it, because there is a process of central, sort of checking, et cetera. That functionality was available.
19:57There's also a screen to manage all the units together for those users that had access to multiple units, and then also calculating the key calculation of what is the required number of ref to attributed outputs. And so this was based on the cat if D of Z, and the ... reduction, and having that information all available per unit.
20:19Next slide, please.
20:22And then the roof one over F two, in terms of support there.
20:25So the forms themselves, where we're pulling in data, where relevant from elsewhere in elements, so you might know, obviously on the ref to the bibliographic metadata, the Open Access Compliance Status on the staff information, ORCID ID, et cetera, and wherever possible, or re-using that content.
20:44Also, the ability to capture submission decisions, overrides reasons. So, for example, the ref one, if it's an individual who's in the potential pool of stuff to be included, and it's been decided not to include them, to be able to capture that. And the reason why, and so that you're not revisiting that decision six months later, I thought we did this, and there's no record of Y, and et cetera.
21:07We aimed to support all data collection and management in system for both of F one and F two. And this was also supported by an optional kind of loose workflow, and this, each institution, if you wanted to employ the sources available. So, each form had a status of entry, and progress, or checking underway, are complete, and you could use that to manage. The process of like has has been checked, it says, you know, we've done with this one. Great.
21:32And then for each submission element, we also had a management screen that delivered on-screen summary level lists with key properties displayed. So that if you just needed to see things in summary, there are visible number of filters available on each screen. Bulk actions available, for example, if you want it to be uploading.
21:51Fixed term contract details for individuals that could be done through a bulk action and a number of stock reports for referendum or two as well available. And buy stock reports I've been sort of out of the box that you didn't have to decide yourself.
22:04Next slide, please.
22:07Just wanted to touch some of them, because obviously, there was so much complexity on the roof to form. So, just wanted to sort of highlight that all the metadata requirements for every unit and there are differing requirements, was supported. So, the three different parts of the additional information text for those units that supported the output sub profile category for those units that supported the output allocation. Obviously, the last later edition of delayed due to covert 19, all of that was supported within our realm.
22:39And we also offered a separate attribution algorithm service that was a separate paid form, service that, I think about four institutions ended up procuring. And this was a process to help maximize the attribution of outputs, ensuring that the highest quality and the equal distribution of outputs across each unit submission.
23:01Next slide, please.
23:05Then, the submission itself, so we offered the facility to generate the submitted an XML file that could then be uploaded to the rest submission system and nothing needed to happen to that file. You didn't have to manipulate in any way. It just was generated, and you could upload it. You could select what content you wanted to include in the fall. So, if you wanted to do the whole institution, all submissions that could be done. Or if you just wanted to unit by unit, and formed by forums, if you just wanted to do F 1 at 1 stage, and then you do ref to later, that was possible. And if you were using the workflow status, you could also just include, for example, those that were complete, if you wanted to just have those that had been confirmed, the data's been confirmed as correct, include those in the submission XML for important.
23:50Next slide, please.
23:53And just lastly, I love showing these, but, you know, start in 15 minutes to talk to all the functionality of months of development, but we had a number of stock reports available and again, these are just out of the box available for all clients, using the roof functionality, a key one there, as well as the rest submission validation. We did reproduce all the submitter validation rules as report key. There were the Polish submission validation rules. It turns out, there were some that were not published, Some clients got caught out by that event, but you know, I'd say that 90% of the, we have the submission validation rules, and so you could generate that report. Prior to ever having to engage with rest submission system. Generate that report and get a sense of how many validation errors you had.
24:37And potentially being able to resolve those before engaging with the rest submission system. So I think that saved institutions a lot of time. And a lot of scariness at first upload to the submission system can be quite frightening. I think the first one, we did our E 2000 and again, I think we had 18,000 validation. one of them are the same one, but it's still, That was quite scary.
24:58And we also offered a number of dashboards, and these were key for helping sort of see the the composition of the submission and also identifying data issues as well. So there were a number around that submission summary, indicative, quality profiles, et cetera.
25:13Next slide, please.
25:17And then for us, just a bit of looking ahead. Again, you know, this is all old money now. Who knows what the next event is going to be like.
25:23But we did take gathered feedback following the last submission. You know, once everybody had sort of taking a breath and relax a bit, we got great ideas on what worked well, and where we could improve, So we got some ideas from addition. No stock reports that we might support. And there was a concept that we had in the rough modular last time around where we only supported one exercise as the ref exercise. And I think that was a restriction that we don't necessarily need to apply. So we might open that up that you could have multiple exercises, being flagged as a ... exercise, and being able to do things that might support, sort of scenario modeling, et cetera.
26:02As a submission requirements start to take shape, we will set up a new roof steering committee and discuss how elements for support institutions and preparing that submission, and then an open question about whether we should expand our functionality to include Read three research impact. And that'll be an open question to discuss the value of doing so with our clients, and we'll see. We'll see where that's it.
26:26And it says, Thank You very much.
26:35OK, access on me. So Slow said my name is Scott with coal. I'm the open research to open research development. And discovery leads in the University Library left the university. And I'm going to stay on the fix, share, aspects of what we did around Raf.
26:53We were hoping that some of my research of his colleagues would be able to join State, but unfortunate because of workloads and other commitments they've not been able to. So we did use elements, and I'll refer to that as well.
27:03I'm going to focus primarily on on fixture, and how we use that within the library service for this presentation. Next slide, please.
27:13So, what I'm going to talk about is kind of how how we used fixture to support the ref's submission.
27:19I apologize to everyone if this is opening up any mental scars when we refer to ref.
27:25I'm going to talk about what we used it for, also what we didn't use it for, which I think is kind of as important, and then some other systems and tools that we did use as well. So next slide please.
27:39I just wanted to give a quick kind of a quick, very quick in this case kind of history of Lethbridge fixture.
27:46So we originally had fixed shows a data repository swee soft launch that back in April 2015, with an official launch on the data plus decide in January 2016. And then as an institution, we made its decision to move away from our existing institutional repository, which was de space at the time. And then we moved into an all in one fixture repository in August 2019.
28:14So that the see kind of the timeline says we kind of have fixed shows, a publications repository, only from 20 19. Previously we were with the space for publications.
28:25Next slide please.
28:28Forward, one more piece.
28:31So, it's just really to highlight kind of what we use fixture for in terms of outputs. And in terms of item types.
28:39I mean, it's not all of them, but it says represent stuff. So you can see that.
28:42we've got a thesis for, please, a journal article for a place datasets. And then, last one place, of the kind of a figure seeing see there the previews and the thumbnails that Adrian was alluding to in his presentation, as well.
29:02Let's say, obviously, for, for a lot of the ref aspects that we were talking about, it was that second element. The journal articles, and the conference proceedings with, ISSN that we were really very focused in, on, but at that, they were only part of the, the the outputs and the And the outputs And the item types that we had within the repository.
29:25Next slide, please.
29:28So, in terms of how we used it for ref, photo moieties, although, I'm not talking about Simplex elements too much today, it is important to emphasize that we do have elements as are Chris. And if I ever refer to Lupin, I'm not talking about flowers, That's that's what we call our ...
29:48Elements version, internal to law firm.
29:52So, next slide, please.
29:55We also used perhaps not surprisingly, the repository to help make articles, particularly the accepted manuscripts, open access. Next slide, please.
30:06And, the next one place, and I think it's worth saying that again, Adrian alluded to this, that we use, because we've got elements SACWIS.
30:16Our journal articles and our conference proceedings of books are books, chapters, et cetera, are all deposited fire elements into our fixture repository, our datasets and *****, to post it directly into the repository, into fixture. But the, the journal articles and the like, especially the more traditional text based outputs, are deposited through our elements instance.
30:41In addition to, kind of the, the refs, the, the, the main, the core ref, and the main ref requirements, the university also had an an ambition to deposit 100% of our, what we term, its primary research outputs. And this vary between schools and departments, so this wasn't an institutional primary output that varied between schools and departments. So, say, it wasn't just articles, it was books, the book chapter. So, it's more of those text based traditional outputs as well. Next slide, please.
31:12So an exploit, please.
31:15In addition, we, we will use in the repository, so using fixed share to help to increase the visibility of our research. And next slide, next point, please.
31:25And also alongside Irish UK, which has where you can benchmark statistics.
31:31We will also use in the repository to help highlight some of the statistics, both the views and the downloads that were available, an exploit case.
31:45And that's through the publicly available stats. So, I'll be showing some of those in a few slides time, but also, mainly because of some of the skill sets within the team, in the library, some very basic API calls to try and get some some more statistics out of the items that are in the repository.
32:05Next slide, please.
32:07So, in terms of workflow, I've called this a perfect workflow, and I don't think we ever had one of these. There was always those on the call who are posted, your staff or responsibility for the process and outputs will realize there was no such thing really as a perfect workflow.
32:25So, but the way we we looked at it really, was that the academic, obviously, or the academics have have the article accepted.
32:32Academics then deposited, as I said, via Simplex elements and they used either the manual or harvested records at there, that that that PDF to, and then that was sent through to to the fixed repository.
32:47Basic metadata and file, as I said, then appears in our curation pool talks pool in the repository.
32:56Then I repository stuff would process the deposits. They would hopefully approve the records. Either.
33:04Embargoes or open depends on Publisher requirements at the time.
33:11Repository staff, but then e-mail the academic who's deposited to say base, I'm paraphrasing, but basically thank you very much for depositing. Here's a, here's the handle link to your records. I should highlight here that we use handles for our kind of our textile traditional publications repository. But we use DOI's for our theses and for our data and figure, and an image repository side.
33:38Then, the fixture record is then harvested back to elements.
33:42So the fixture metadata is sent back to the elements instance and is added to the page of that, the article on the on, on elements and it's kind of we use the fixture recorders as kind of the gold plated metadata so that hats everything that we needed in terms of embargo period, in terms of bibliographic information in terms of open closed, et cetera. So that fixture harvested racal backends elements that we would be used as the gold standard.
34:16As I've put here, this was the kind of the perfect workflow.
34:20In reality, again, those of you who are more repository staff on the call would appreciate that.
34:27When when the item is when an article is deposited as the accepted manuscripts. We don't have all the bibliographic records so we have to keep a separate Excel spreadsheet what the way we Did it anyway. We kept a separate Excel spreadsheets which listed all of the articles that additional metadata needs to be added so and then ask our staff went over that as almost. It's almost like painting the fourth bridge. It's a continual process to keep checking back for those records to see which ones had now been published. So where we knew what the various cryptographic metadata, the DOI, et cetera would be.
35:03So then we can complete those, complete that record, and each time we made a change on the fixture records, that was then automatically harvest back harvested back to elements. So the kind of those last two, that last point on the flowchart that I've put there, that always happened automatically. We didn't have to say, resend it back to elements. It was kind of that continual updating of the elements records whenever we update the fixture records.
35:28Next slide please.
35:31So in terms of, of what that looks like, A, hopefully this comes across OK. Apologies if it doesn't come across very well. On the left of the screen, you've got kind of a manual records. So this is one that some guy Cocoa with co created on our elements instance.
35:50See that it's relatively basic metadata information, then on the right so you've got the first half the Senate pair fully on my screen suckered into half the screenshot. Unfortunately, you've got the first half of the information that's say automatically harvested back from fixture repository into ... elements.
36:09So, you can see, there, it's, it's, it's much more additional metadata to it, it's, it's increase the the breadth and the depth, and the, the space, The standard of the metadata that's then on the elements record, which can then feed into the various other ref and assessments modules that exist within, within elements that that menu explained.
36:33Next slide, please.
36:36In terms of statistics, you can look at these on an item level. So, basically, a record level, So this is actually one of our datasets within ... Repository.
36:47So, I took these screenshots about a week ago, say that it's had about 20, 21,000 views, 7000 downloads, and 11 citations, and that citations.
36:57You can click on that, and it takes you through two dimensions. So, even though it left for We don't subscribe to dimensions, we can click on that. But we can go into that part of dimensions and see which, which articles are, which are the things indexed within dimensions our site, in this particular record.
37:15Next slide, please.
37:17So, that was item level. This is a group level. So, it left for groups of basically our academic schools and academic departments.
37:27So, these are the statistics from our School of Architecture built in Civil Engineering.
37:32So, you can see that over the whole lifetime of items that have been deposited into the repository, both at the space and our fixture repos Streaks. We have, we kind of move the statistics statistics over as we change repositories. We've had about 8000 views, and nearly 6, 7, 8 million views, and nearly six million downloads of ABC's material, both Journal articles, datasets, et cetera. I say these match the school structure, so they don't match the unit of assessment structure because our repository is based around say the HR structure, not a uri structure. Next slide, please.
38:14So in addition to the group level, we can also have an institutional level statistics, you can see there, we've had nearly 48 million views, and nearly 38 million downloads of items within the repository. I say that species, journal articles, book chapters, books, datasets, etcetera.
38:34And next slide please.
38:38As I said, I think it's important to highlight what we didn't use Fixture for and say some of this we used elements for which I'm not talking about today.
38:46We didn't really, just because of our research base, really, we didn't really use a fixture for things like art portfolios or practice based portfolios where as other States, Army, Bath, Spa, and other institutions that have fixture used used fixture differently as ... for that.
39:07We didn't really use fixture for compiling reports That was almost entirely pulled out of elements and elements data. And again, the monitoring of compliance with the ref open access policy was always done through elements rather than through fixture. But that was used and as I alluded to before, that was using the data that was automatically pulled and created from fixture into elements but the actual reports and the monitoring wisdom within elements itself.
39:37Next slide please.
39:41In terms of what the systems and tools we used, Simplex elements, obviously, And Excel is probably fair to say it was quite heavily used, I'm sure, across the sector in terms of submissions.
39:54But as I say leads to within the library, we need to keep set for Excel spreadsheet around. We call it missing publications but basically missing bibliographic data and a mind the standards, again, within research, office planning, et cetera. Across the institution, there were quite a few Excel spreadsheets that were flying around at various times to do with Raf.
40:17And last slide, please.
40:21So in terms of who was involved, and kind of how, how things are set up a structure that left, I thought I'd end with this wealth and start with it. So the repository is kind of run and managed within my team in the library.
40:36The Research Office, Lakoff the Simplex elements.
40:40IT services help to manage both teach the science, obviously, as with ... look after both, but also for for ref support. There were multiple services and staff from across And, obviously, the academics which is someone I'm not really mentioned today, but multiple services and staff from across the university were involved in the ref, both within our multiple teams within the research office, multiple teams within the library.
41:03But then across the institution, as well as a planning vice chancellors office, et cetera.
41:11And last slide, please.
41:15Basically, if you're not, if you don't know left for, that's what the university looks like.
41:19Our East Midlands campus Anika, if you don't know left But you probably noticed there's quite a few sports pictures where we do tend to do quite a lot of sports that left her So thank you very much.
41:32Thank you very much to all the presenters and they come back home video hope you can see me Yes, thanks adrianne ammonia and Gavin. We've now got a bit of time for some questions at the end if you'd like to put them in the chat or the Q&A box. And if there for a particular passive, maybe just write it, But if not, I'll just share them with the great and we've had a couple come through. So the first one is with FIG share and the group functionality. is there a way to have specific metadata, specific groups?
42:07Adrian? I'll just humans for you.
42:15In terms of custom metadata, you could add those two different groups, I'm pretty sure. Dorothy, you, do you use not, Yeah, you can. So, we have, for example, we have different metadata for our publications than we do for our theses. And again, different metadata for data are so different.
42:38At the moment, it's limited to metadata by group. My, understanding an agent can correct me, I just wanna commit fixture to this. I think this is coming up within agile and timeless catalogs. I can't remember. But recently seen. I think there's going to be metadata by item type, as well.
42:57So, it will be able to give our topic by group, or by by item type.
43:04That's right. Our thoughts on this on the roadmap.
43:08Q two by Q two Daphna OK, thank you both. Next question as proof ammonia can simply take Breath module, include peer review data and does elements of her way to capture peer review data during the periods in between breaths. Thank you.
43:24Yes, indeed. So, that's part of the, sort of the out of the box, generic. Standard assessment functionality is enabling those review processes to continue throughout these, the interim periods. And then those come through into the ref module, and there's then capacity or an ability to capture an overall review score.
43:42So if you have multiple reviews, obviously there, there could be, you know, some differences there than greeting and agreeing an overall score and then that overall score can be used to calculate indicative, quality profiles, et cetera. So yes. The answer short answer is yes.
43:56Thank you. Next question I think this would be for Gareth but it could be for others as well. It says did your validation reporting also report against rules that would not incorporated into the submission system reporting. I'm thinking of matches with outputs previously submitted to ... 2014.
44:19If we did, That was done within the research of his so I can't answer that specifically. But I would imagine we did something like that but I don't know for sure.
44:28Great. Next one. We've got legs.
44:30Yeah. Yeah. So we did something similar and admirable. But it was a tough one because U is not just what you submitted, but what might have been submitted by another institution. So we did a massive download of the whole of ref to from RE 2008 did comparison by DOI. We know, it's not perfect. But it did find some interesting, by you away leads, as well, which was, Yes. So there are ways to do it. But we did it out a system, I think that's rather than trying to code something, you know, for kind of a one-off exercise. I think that might be overkill Lisa was for us.
45:05Thank you. Isn't there a field to mark a publication as under publication in ... to be able to filter those and check without the need to maintain a spreadsheet?
45:23Yeah, that's different yet?
45:28To add to that, the other, We also kept within the spreadsheet, we also captured exactly what other metadata we needed to look for.
45:37So we knew exactly what it was on each record that we were looking for, whether that be the DOI, whether that be the issue, whether it be the volume number. So it was kind of capture and it wasn't just, yes, look at this record it was look at this record. And this is what we're looking for in that particular record, we were capturing that as well.
45:55Great, thank you. For Gareth, this is labeled, Could you tell us more about the rationale, the use of DOI's for theses and retaining handles for full text items? Any advantages or disadvantages?
46:10It's different with an entirely different webinar in itself. I think, in many ways.
46:14The short answer is we didn't want to foot for publications, so articles and the like.
46:22We didn't want to replicate DOI's for what could be seen as the same publication.
46:29So there could be multiple accepted manuscripts of the same article in multiple institutional repositories. H, if each one of those has a DOI, along with the ...
46:40of the so-called version of Records, then effectively, you could have 8 or 9 DOI's for effectively the same same article, so we didn't, we didn't want to do that. We want to use handles, and we use, when we choose handles previously in the space repository, So, there was a consistency of Nathan, those those handles across. For the publications ..., we actually start CG, sorry for Theses and ..., where she started using.
47:09Does anyone else from left on the call that concurrently on the timelines here? But we started my memory for memory. We started using dois when we moved to fixture for publications repository. So previously, our Theses had had handles, and then we move to dois for when we moved to fixture. The rationale behind, say, theses, rather than than publications, is, it's basically similar, and that we are the publisher of as, as the institution, we are, effectively the publisher of the thesis. In the same way, we are the publisher of the data.
47:44So kind of, we are, we are the home publisher, there is the one instance of that thesis, although it's harvested so things like ethos and and other places.
47:52but as, as we are acting as the publisher, them, then we felt that we were able to mint DOI's for those theses.
48:00In short, that was our rationale.
48:02But I'm happy to, to have a wider conversation, 'cause I know there's a bigger conversation around DOI's for theses, but we'll sit DOI's and other identifies for accepted manuscripts.
48:14Thanks. Go with your, share the questions, with the group of speakers after as well. So if there is a need for you guys would like to do, that should be easy enough. Next question we have is probably for Adrian, and would probably relates specific to the roadmap, which is what plans does fixture have for developing its use interface, and being able to easily move items into a collection and how it looks on the screen, IE, some nos for collections?
48:43I think I would have to follow that up with a specific link to the specific item on the roadmap, but happy to do that.
48:51We should as well be doing a Roadmap webinar fairly soon. I kind of explaining each plan things, and in more detail, and how they're going to be spread throughout the year, So Alan follow up directly to the, the Oscar that question.
49:05As well with that, but whoever that Melissa would support, what they said, so yeah.
49:12I think that's one That I've had in the UK. Community causes. Wasilla definitely follow up with the roadmap with an eye on that one.
49:19Next question I asked: Do you ever have any questions and thank you everyone.
49:25D: Can I clarify config should be configured for ref compliance checking, and is hectic element by it as an essential add onto fixture, Transferring data to a ref submission system.
49:45Or I think I can answer that last frozen.
49:53Can you guys hear me?
49:55Yeah. OK, I can answer the last part and, you know, having selected elements is not required. You can just go directly into the rest submission system and type it in, you know, and I think, part of it, that's a discussion.
50:05How big is your institution, All that sort of stuff, and some institutions very happily just go straight into the rest submission system and can use spreadsheets to monitor things. I think a big part of that is what is the volume?
50:17But yeah, what elements does offer you is that facility to be tracking your compliance with the open Access policy? And then also creating the submission XML gathering all the additional metadata that's beyond just the bibliographic metadata.
50:34Yeah but then what fix your offers and I will just hand over now, is the actual repository functionality and the perpetuity. And I'll leave that to you guys to answer that side of things.
50:46So you know, you can host everything in picture and you can use it too.
50:55I guess have your referee turn information. I guess, not the size of a lot.
51:04Lots of spreadsheets.
51:05We do a couple of partners that don't have a Crystal system, but you use fictions.
51:13I could perhaps follow after speaking to some of those people about approaches.
51:19Great. Thank you. Um, next question is Can staff or outputs be grouped by a unit of wrath assessment as well as by institutional Department? I'm not sure if that relate specifically to fixture or element so, I'm not sure what you guys think?
51:35I'm guessing it's fixture.
51:37So other evasion wants to say this but as well.
51:43The way we use, the way we've set the pace is based around our HR fetes. So that's why it's, it's done by.
51:53basically departmental and school group in.
51:57I think that you would probably have to, if you, if you wanted to, as yo, Yo ace, you'd probably have to do it via the metadata, both of them by the groups, so kind of yo A one as a keyword or something like that.
52:16I don't think it would be, just because of the way the HR feed works into fixture, I don't, unless the ... was included within the HR feed.
52:27I don't think it would be possible to, to set up that way, but fiction, if I may, may know better than me.
52:36I guess, on top custom metadata field for every unit of assessment and then been input to an inquiry based on, You're not unit assessment field.
52:50Key next one is many referred to an additional ref module that was only bought by for higher education institutions, could you please explain a bit more about what this module office?
53:02Yeah, so that it wasn't a module, it's just a service that enabled.
53:09So it was a service with an algorithmic approach to attributing ref to outputs. So, you had your, here, all your F one researchers that you're gonna be including in this mission. Here, all your outputs with their indicative quality score.
53:24Attribute these. Knowing that any one individual can have more than five, everybody needs minimum one, except obviously for individual circumstances and ensuring the highest quality of the submission and distributing those outputs evenly as well. So you don't get some people with five. And then you've got this long tail of what you know, to make sure that you've got evenly distributed submission. So, that was an additional service that was offered. Some institutions that their own internal processes in that regard. But yeah, from my feedback that we received those institutions to use, it found it extremely helpful. There were a couple who have said they wished they procure that service. Because they found that process quite difficult. But yeah, so it was just done as a report that was, could be generated within Elements. So it wasn't a separate thing, you didn't need a separate inferred interface. It was done via the reporting module, they could generate the report.
54:14And it would go through and run through these attributions and it wouldn't actually do them. I think you had to, then, I'm trying to remember now, I think it gave you, this is what you could do. And then, if you wanted to apply those attributions, you could then bulk upload that information that, sorry, those attributions and apply them.
54:32Sorry, that was convoluted tenuous, but in this little box for too long.
54:36I'm getting a really warm, anyway, nearly that I think you've just got a few more. The next one is, if considering migrating to different systems and repository, does all crucial ref metadata, and if they shouldn't be maintained, would it be maintained after migration, if it was too simple to conviction?
55:00I can answer on the ... side.
55:02I would say that no, the what you submitted to Riff 2021 would not be migrated. I think your best bet.
55:10I don't know if there's any value in doing so I think you could definitely haven't flag, I've got some field on the research output to indicate this was submitted to ref 20 21, but otherwise, you might know, that stuff is available, as you know, external datasets. It's interesting I'm not sure there'll be masses of value of importing all that metadata just for historical purposes, historical reporting. But yes, it's not something that we've done in the past, obviously migrating all the outputs themselves and their bibliographic metadata. That's a standard process as part of taking elements on and bringing in legacy data from other systems.
55:48That's the element side of things.
55:52Similarly, it depends vol.
55:56What metadata you would want to bring across and will do, will, not to crosswalk to in picture.
56:01It's, it's not technically impossible, but it would be fruitful as an exercise emotional.
56:13When we've got is, How easy is it to add custom fields in ... such as new IDs and in the background brackets for the wrath orders for evidence such as evidence of acceptance?
56:27Very easy. So, it's, yeah, it's a very flexible data model. A number of custom fields that you can add, you can decide whether those are to be mandatory for different types, et cetera. So, very easy.
56:38Thank you. I think I could just say that fixture is being referred to as a repository as this. In the same sense as a prince in D Space. I think that's a yes, atrium that, obviously.
56:50We're biased, but with lots of great features, in addition. Does impact Tech Support API connections with other systems, for example, force, which is used by various institutions for research funding, and knowledge exchange processes?
57:07Yes, indeed, Yes, Elements comes with an API, A standard number institutions use that to hook up to their local BI tools, et cetera.
57:17Yep, Thank you, and I think this is our last one by Adriana to mushroom, we'd have to go away and have a check, which is did any University? He used Fixture as their main roof submission system in 2021 Not have a cross system as well to help them out with them.
57:34Currently, unknown, Yeah, I ran into that, That's an interesting one for us to go away with. I think we've answered everything, but I will export the questions, and just double check that we haven't share them with the speakers as well for follow up.
57:51Really big. Thank you to. All the presenters are really engaging session And to the audience, as well, for, I think, record breaking number of questions. So, yeah. Thank you all. And we'll send out the recording in the next couple of days. And if you'd like to follow up directly, you can do that for me, Laura. ..., to pass you on to the, to the correct person. But, yeah, thank you all so much.
58:13I'm going to press goodbye, now. See you again soon.
RE-GENERATE TRANSCRIPTSAVE EDITS