A network for new and aspiring library professionals



  • The beautiful setting (the conference centre overlooked the beach!)
  • The varied and passionate keynotes/sessions delivered
  • The new professionals session being mentioned by the chair as one of her conference highlights (our Siobhan was part of the panel)
  • The amazing circus themed conference dinner
  • The chance to talk to (network with) a wide number of people including fellow new professionals, suppliers, publishers, speakers and other delegates
  • Being the top Tweeters!

Day 1: Open Access (OA), data and scholarly communications were the focus of the day in terms of keynotes & looked at the following:

  • the relationships between libraries and publishers
  • progress towards OA
  • the cause and effect in reputation management

The first plenary was delivered by Ann Rossiter and in addition to providing a background to SCONUL she explained that their shared mission was to “provide faster access to world knowledge”. Ann gave an overview of how things have changed:

  • library spaces are busier than ever (they are feeling the pressure to provide study spaces and meet the high footfall)
  • libraries are being asked to support a wider range of institutional priorities
  • libraries retain their traditional roles in supporting students in addition to the new roles to support scholarly comms (libraries have less staff to support more areas than ever before)

Ann Rossiter – “Managing relationships between libraries and publishers for greater impact”

Library budgets have flat lined over last few years, however, content is increasing: budget for content takes up a large portion this; which is problematic. Ann stated that libraries have become as efficient as possible already; they don’t want to cut content, but are at a crunch point. So how can we change the dynamics?

  • delivering efficiency through partnerships, e.g. publishers to do the following: author’s acceptance letter should include some core information (clear date, DOI, use statement) – this  would save staff time (in terms of searching and interpretation), attach manuscripts to acceptance letters (so they can be put straight in the repository), adopt ORCID identifiers (to help identify output, help populate repositories and monitor OA compliance) : all relatively straightforward changes!

Ann states that publishers could come up with a list of changes libraries can make – thus both parties can deliver efficiency through these partnerships.

In terms of OA, as a nation we have made the decision to embrace OA but the transition has been too slow and too expensive – why? Hybrid journals are less competitive than OA journals, which has a real impact on libraries: 60% of research is hidden behind pay walls! Publishers need to get on board with and embrace OA, they need to adjust their business model: including moving away from print subscriptions, embracing off-setting now (as  reputation matters) and being realistic about library budgets.

Libraries need to avoid being wedded to traditional ways of doing things and need to re-engineer scholarly comms in the meantime (before all content becomes OA) – thinking about how much can be done collaboratively. Profiteering publishers: beware! Your profits may cushion you from the need to innovate until it’s too late. 

Ann’s session was thought provoking and very well received by the audience (she even got a round of applause during her session!).

The second plenary, delivered by Michael Jubb, focused on progress towards OA. Michael stated that there are 447 different OA policies across funders in Europe. All of the policies have been carefully thought through but there are strong differences between them e.g. licences, green, deposit. They change often, are difficult to understand (the language/terminology needs addressing e.g. self-archiving – doesn’t accurately describe the process!) and can also be difficult to find. In terms of facts:

  • Gold OA journals take about 17% of total # journals recorded in Scopus
  • UK authors show a high preference for ‘delayed OA journals’
  • Most UK authors – 64 % – publish in hybrid journals
  • 25 most commonly used publisher policies are difficult to understand/find
  • 70% of all UK articles and 78% of global articles published on terms that keep them behind paywall in 2015
  • 60% of Gold OA articles are posted on sites other than the IR and publishers
  • Only 9% of “self-archived” content is in compliance with journal policy
  • Most versions of record (44%) are found on social sharing sites like researchgate etc
  • Globally 18% research articles are freely available on date of publication
  • 1/3 articles published by UK researchers are available in OA after 24 months

OA success in the UK is good but much work to be done says Jubb, focusing on policies, workflow, researcher understanding, compliance, costs. If we want a way to a better future for OA publishing, we need to work together for a shared purpose and to tackle challenges.


Jubb’s conclusions about OA practice in the UK

The third plenary, delivered by Charlie Rapple, focused on reputation management and how our role lies in supporting the personal brands created by researchers. In doing this we need to look at where researchers are putting their output e.g. Facebook and how we can monitor this – e.g. tools such as Kudos.

Breakout sessions:

“Open access – the funder perspective”

  • DFG are future-proofing by asking for contributions from universities so that they can manage without DFG funding when it ends.
  • Science Europe have outlined minimum expected services from OA publishers when APCs are paid.

There is a catch 22 for OA: researchers can’t move because of reputation, publishers because of business and universities because of rankings. Funders, large and small, need to share best practice and introduce greater consistency in OA policies and outcomes. Publishers need to provide clarity on pricing for products (including big deals) and transparency is needed with no non-disclosure as its public money. If there’s more transparency/clarity on APCs there can be a discussion on what this is actually paying for in this publishing process; this could lead to a change in prices. Funders have to be committed, prudent, and swift when implementing OA.

“Open scholarly communications data”


Stuart Lawson showing the flows in scholarly publishing

  • The global spend on subscriptions is £6bn. Freedom of Information requests  were used to break down that figure on where it’s spent; Stuart said that he can make an informed guess on how much money is spent on APCs but it’s not a full picture, however, it is getting better.
  • Big subscription publishers are mainly the biggest recipients of APC money e.g. Elsevier.
  • Control of the publication process is in a lot of different hands (with many vested interests) so costs will rise during transition to OA.
  • It is difficult to measure the impact of off-setting schemes etc. on researchers’ publishing choices e.g. off-setting can lead to pressure in publishing with choice based on cost rather than preference.
  • Audience member stated we have more power together- as we are paying so much in APCs we should negotiate with publishers. However, Neil from Jisc (another audience member) said collective negotiations will be more successful if there is an alternative.

“Meet the new professionals”


Siobhan talking about being a new professional and also NLPN

Siobhan was joined by Anna Theis and Dom Fripp in the session, all of whom spoke about their career to date including their current roles, provided tips to other new professionals including where to look for jobs/how to get experience, their insight into library schools and what experienced professionals could learn from new professionals. The key theme, from all of the new professionals presentations, is the ability and willingness to collaborate and liaise with external teams. Kate Price (UKSG chair) mentioned thus session as one of her conference highlights.

The message I took away from this first day is that simplification is needed in terms of terminology (if we struggle with it, what hope do our users have) and policies. There is also a need for greater need for transparency on behalf of publishers. Business models and working practices will need to be adapted, by libraries and publishers, in addition to a rethinking of the fundamental basis of their approach to working together (collaboration), in which respective interests are more closely aligned.


Perfect end to the first day!

Day 2: the focus of the day in terms of keynotes was user engagement/experience and looked at the following:

  • ethnographic approaches to the practice of scholarly communications
  • student engagement to shape services

The first plenary was delivered by Donna Lanclos who talked about UX and its use in finding out what our users are doing and adapting accordingly. Donna explained that qualitative approaches allow us to pull back and think of how our work is embedded. The “lived experience” of academics is not closed, therefore, we need to counter these institutional modes of practice e.g. one-stop shop, hierarchies etc. We can’t get to the “lived experience” with analytics, neither can we just take the students word for it, thus different methods need to be employed e.g. cognitive mapping. Cognitive mapping can be used to show us all the places people work and how, including the bus, the communities students engage with, whether online and offline, networks of people and resources are all factors. The rich data generated in these exercises (in addition to interviews) can be revisited over and over again, and give us a sense of where people are digitally and why. Conversations after these mapping experiences are really important as you can find reasoning/motivations behind these actions.


Donna showing us a mapping exercise

Thus when you know what these motivations are you can explore alternative ways of meeting them; this practice leads to fewer assumptions and more grounding. In order to build systems that will really be used, we have to understand the many connections and experiences of users. We don’t have to control people’s practices to help them to be good practitioners, in the same way we can educate them so they can make good choices about which tools they use and not just how to use tools.

In terms on content Donna also said that we should be asking “why must it be closed” rather than “why should we open it?” and be honest about the reasons.

The second plenary, led by Andre Avorio, was about Open Music Library; which was not fully open and thus prompted a lot of debate on Twitter and also in the Q&A session. The key point from this session (for me) was that despite the increase in CC content available, music is hard to find, discover and and use (music is dealt with quite poorly by both Google and discovery systems).

The third plenary was delivered by Sarah Pittaway and focused on engaging students in order to shape services. The aims of the project were:

  • to make more of ‘value added opportunities’ – in partnership with students
  • talk and listen to students, giving them the opportunity to shape and improve services (rather than just responding to ad hoc feedback or surveys)

Sarah Pittaway  – working with students as partners

Partnership and collaboration were cited as being key to the success of the project. Students became partners/change agents (2 student coordinators), who are actively involved in delivering the library service e.g. carrying out surveys/questionnaires, focus groups & projects such as top tips for library users, inductions, creation of mascots. However, Sarah informed us when taking on ideas from students it is important to make them aware of the limitations in what can be done. Added benefits of this project included changing staff culture – positive change in behaviour, and has raised the library’s profile.

This theme continued in the breakout session I attended:

“Students, customers or partners? Ensuring the student voice is heard through effective market research”

Both University of Liverpool and the University of Birmingham libraries employed market research to look at many areas e.g. social media, signage, discovery service, space. This research involved the use of surveys and workshops to gain user input in order to improve services. At Liverpool this was carried out by students and has led to a new Student Library Partnership group which is beneficial to both library staff and students.

The message I took away from the first half of the day is that it is important to speak to our users to find how they work/interact and thus adapt our processes/systems (where possible) to align with this.

The following lightning talks were both very powerful and provided an insight into libraries and publishers in developing countries including the isolation and challenges faced and also principles for engagement:


The conference dinner

Day 3:

Breakout session:

“Transition from in-trays to inbox to internet: using an online source workflow management system to improve electronic resources work processes”

The impetus for Queen’s University Belfast using an online workflow management system to improve e-resources work processes came from:

  • overloading email inboxes  which were becoming hard to manage thus hindered productivity
  • wanting to work in a more systematic way
  • wanting to remove silos of information.

They opted for open source as there was no additional money. They were looking for something modifiable to their needs & needs of e-resources and after conducting research found Trello had been implemented within a library environment so opted for this. Geraldine then gave us a demonstration of Trello explaining the features are benefits; this was really useful because although we (NLPN) use Trello for our organisation I was not aware all of the functions available e.g. sending emails directly to Trello.


Break time looking at the beach!

Final plenary sessions:

Cameron Neylon – “Investing in scholarly futures: communities, funding and the reimagining of research communications”. Cameron began his session talking about culture and how the culture of researchers is being mega busy, focused on being better than everyone else, rankings, imposter syndrome. Publishing has a lot of women in it, but is quite a masculine culture nonetheless. Publishers believe they’re focused on quality assurance, intellectual property and service but in argument they use retail analogies. Cameron tells us that in order to understand anyone’s position on scholarly publishing ask about Sci Hub and listen to the answer e.g. the language of liberation vs the language of theft and piracy. We were told that property and copyright of little interest to researchers, who just want access, however, it is publishers who are the ones concerned with theft and piracy. Publishers and researchers define assets differently: money vs time = different investments. Thus conversations on changing nature of scholarly comms are going nowhere because different groups are focused on different interpretations, however, researchers need to take back control. We need to think beyond capital investments to the time and investment input by researchers, finding a common language, having conversations between publishers, researchers, librarians.

The last plenary was delivered by Emma Mulqueeny and focused on 97ers – those “born digital”. Emma stated the following things about 97ers:

  • They have “ruthless moments of concentration” – they’re not distracted, they just focus briefly on many things
  • They are tribal – experts & community leaders in some things, avid learners in other communities
  • They are relentless researchers & natural conspiracy theorists- proving people wrong is the goal
  • They know no borders – in an online world, they’re multicultural global citizens
  • They understand online identity and the ‘trade of data’ for ‘free’ services

Emma ended her talk by stating that “IP is dead in the water in the next ten years” and with this new generation the response should be to publish everything!

This conference would be a really useful for those involved in or interested in research support as there was a lot of focus on researchers (how to support them, how they work etc.) and open access (from a funder perspective, progress in this area etc.). There were a lot of bursaries available for this conference so if this is an area you’re interested in make sure you check out the bursaries for next year’s conference (we will tweet about this when they’re released) and also look at our guide to applying for bursaries.


End of conference trip to the beach 😀

Links to other people’s write ups/video blogs:

Jo Alcock’s blog post including video reviews

Shona Thoma’s guest post for Libfocus

Beth Tapster’s blog post

Ruth MacMullen’s blog post

Susan Hill’s post for UKSG

Detailed feedback from some of the delegates via UKSG

Link to presentations on slideshare

Link to Storify we have curated

4 comments on “#UKSG16

  1. Tim
    April 17, 2016

    Great write up! I’m interested in students as partners so it’s useful to hear about the work that others are doing in this area.

  2. Pingback: My big conference adventures 2016… – Some Library Ramblings

  3. Pingback: My mini survival guide for being deaf at a conference | The Hearing Librarian

  4. Pingback: My mini survival guide to being deaf at a conference | The Hearing Librarian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,063 other followers

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

%d bloggers like this: