Open Access : 91 days or 92 days? (seeking thoughts)

Hi all


In our current OA monitor guidance, we advise UK institutions to set a deposit deadline of 91 days (see https://support.symplectic.co.uk/support/solutions/articles/6000050172).


The recently published REF2021 Audit guidance states in para 46(a)(iv):


"Using Jisc CORE, comparing the datePublished and depositedDate and identifying where the number of days between the two dates is greater than 92".


Given this, should we update our guidance to advise a deposit deadline of 92 days?  Keeping the deposit deadline at 91 days looks like it will overstate non-compliance?


Seeking the community's thoughts :)


Thanks!


Manya


We switched to using months rather than days for our deposit deadline to account for this 90/91/92 days thing, assuming that that is within the spirit of the REF policy.

We also use months. The REF Team have today published an FAQ which may be helpful:


Where elapsed periods are described in calendar months (for example for Open Access eligibility) the period will be determined by comparing the day of the month inclusively.

a. For example, when considering Open Access requirements as set out in paragraph 249a of the Guidance on Submissions, if an output was deposited on 28th March and met the access requirements on 28th April, it would be considered to be compliant with the Open Access requirements.

b. If an output was deposited on 28th March and met the access requirements on 29th April, it would be considered to be non-compliant.

When comparing calendar months with dates at the end of the month, the first day of the following month will be used where there is no day matching the previous month.

a. For example, if an output was deposited on 28th January and met the access requirements on 28th February, it would be considered to be compliant with the Open Access requirements.

b. If an output was deposited on 31st January and met the access requirements on 1st March, it would be considered to be compliant.

c. If an output was deposited on 31st January and met the access requirements on 2nd March, it would be considered to be non-compliant

These worked examples are using the access requirements but the same logic applies to other periods such as the three month deposit requirements.

Oh that's new!  Thanks David!


But I it feels like they've contradicted themselves?


In the Guidance on Submissions it is stated that the output "must have been deposited ... no later than three months after the date of publication."  So, going by this, it appears as though we should apply the logic they describe above.


However, in the audit guidance, they specify that they will measure the deposit period in days (92 to be specific) - which implies we should *not* apply the logic above.


???


Login or Signup to post a comment