 I'm going to be looking at some recent work we've been doing at Manchester, this is a kind of, it's almost like an idle thoughts presentation really, it's things we've been having a go at, it's things we've been trying out, which go beyond what we all now think of as a fairly well established role for libraries in making our research outputs, open access. This is a promotional tweet for something, we ran at the end of last year called the Open Research Forum and that's one of the things I'll be talking about later. Most of you know, certainly those of you in the UK know that we restructured at Manchester a few years ago, and goodness me it was about six years ago now, amazing that. We moved away from our subject librarian teams to dedicated functional teams, which really helped us focus on issues like supporting open access and supporting RDM and indeed just thinking about our last speakers presentation focusing on citation analysis, not just for the library but for the institution. We've done a good job and the services are well received and I don't ever tire of hearing our academics tell me how great our open access services is, but it makes me think what's next, we're doing this well but what more can we do to support our universities. I've been listening to some of the presentations over the last couple of days and I've been having a bit of an emotional reaction to some of them. I haven't been crying like Nicola, but I have been having an emotional reaction in the sense that I've had a sense of frustration that we still seem to be talking about the need to do advocacy for open access to persuade our academics that they should do open access. I think the reason I'm having that emotional reaction is because it feels to me, and this is entirely anecdotal, but it feels to me like we're winning them over, that I don't have those conversations very much anymore. I have conversations about how do we make it easy for them, but generally speaking I hear researchers say yes we get this and we don't just get it because we're being beaten over the head by a policy stick. We get it because we understand it's helpful to us individually, to our institutions and to others who can see our research and benefit from it. So I've been thinking with my team, and of course I need to credit my staff for most of these bright ideas, they're not mine, I just get to talk to you about them, about thinking about what next, what can we do that goes beyond what we've been doing so far. I don't know if does anybody recognise this. Interested to know whether I'm going to pick the news. This isn't a metaphor for librarians and the fact that actually we've done the job and we're extinct. No, you may remember, if you cast your mind about it, you may remember last year there was quite a lot of media interest in some research that demonstrated that unlike what we might have learnt from Jurassic Park, T-Rex couldn't actually run fast enough to catch a speeding jeep and eat Jeff Goldblum or whatever happened. It showed that the skeletal structure meant you could only walk at a certain speed or they'd have just collapsed. So this ended up in the BBC News. I claim no credit at this point for the library in helping make this happen, but it's a good example of research which really did go beyond academia, got everybody's interest, ended up on the news. Professor William Sellers, who led the research at Manchester, very memorably went on BBC Breakfast wearing a really nice dinosaur pullover. It was a really good example for me about how you translate your research into something that engages the layperson and has an impact beyond academia. Quite how you turn that into an impact case study for REF is probably his problem, but I think that's the sort of thing we want to see more of. And it's the sort of thing that I'm beginning to think libraries can help make happen, not just for the obvious stories around dinosaurs, because everybody loves dinosaurs, but other things as well. What I like about this as well incidentally is it was published in Piaget, the library supports funding for Piaget, it's pure gold open access. This video is available as a downloadable, citable data object with a DOI. It's a case study in doing open research well, I think. And not everyone produces research that gets them on to BBC Breakfast at the sphere enough. So what else can we do to help them? I don't have an animated dolphin, I have a static image of dolphins. But Dr Shultz at Manchester did some work into Wales and dolphin behaviours and how they think and suggested there was perhaps more in common between dolphins and humans and we perhaps think, although I think I remember Douglas Adams thought this. But the way that this has reached people outside academia is through something called the conversation. I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with it. It's a blogging platform that tries to align academic research and expertise with a journalistic style that appeals to a broader audience and we encourage our early career researchers in particular to start thinking about how they engage with other audiences using the conversation. The library supports that financially and it means we get a lot of data on how it's used. And that's one way of getting the research out there and then seeing what happens next. And we've been early adopters of the altmetric system at Manchester, so we've been using it a while now. And we can then use that. You won't be able to read this, I doubt. But this is measuring the reach using the altmetric score, which is a combination of measuring how well this research has gone into a number of channels and destinations and social media and so on. And this is the altmetric score for that particular paper, so we can then see how well this is working. I'm reliably informed by one of my staff that Manchester has the highest use of altmetric in the UK. I'm also, I think, I have a little bit harder hearing, so I may not have heard this right, but I think he said to me, we're the third highest globally, which is astonishing to me. And I'll go back and double check that, but that's what I wrote down, so that's what I'm going to tell you. And I think it's partly driven by the fact that we've pushed this quite hard at Manchester as something we think will work, and partly by the profile that the importance wider research impact now has amongst our academics. They're keen to hear these messages, they're keen to hear that these tools exist in a way they might not have been a few years ago. And of course there are caveats with it, we know that, and I know I think Danny tweeted about this earlier in the conference that altmetric scores can be misleading of course, but then so can citation. We've just started playing with QDOS, I hadn't realised QDOS was a sponsor here, so I haven't been offered any payment for promoting it, but I'm very happy to talk to them after the presentation about this. So we've started playing with QDOS, which is a way of providing lay abstracts and promoting research to non-academic audiences. We've not been using it very long at all, but as you can see from the extract from the dashboard, we've had nearly 100,000 page views of QDOS content. Now QDOS can be used by any academic for free, so some of those will have happened before we took out an institutional subscription, but the difference is we now get this data, we get the dashboard because we've got that institutional subscription. And we can begin to think about how we integrate QDOS with other systems because of the fact that we've got that subscription. And this example, sorry I should just say, the example here, I chose this one from an academic called Chris Parker at Manchester. I really like the difference between the paper title in the black and then the lay title in the sort of brownie red colour. He's really thought about what do I say about this to make it sound interesting in a way that this scholarly article probably doesn't. And if I've had a room I'd have put the whole abstract up because it's really clever, it's really well thought through. He's taken his time to think about what's the message I'm trying to give here about this research that makes sense and makes it sound useful to an audience who aren't my academic peers. So all this is going on and we were having these ideas and one of my colleagues said it would be really good to benchmark where we are, you know, how well are we doing? Is there a problem to solve here or is there not? So we did some research, we combined Syval and Scopers data, we ran it through Altmetric Explorer, we created aggregated data sets on customized groups of DOIs and each aggregated data set represented a Russell group member. And what you're seeing here over a three-year period 2014-17 is a league table of Russell groups. Each box is a Russell group institution and the purple box is where Manchester is in the league table on a number of non-academic impact or reach measures. So number of average tweets on papers, number of average policy mentions, average news mentions and so on. And we're below the halfway point on every one and we're in the lower quartile on most of them. So this was really useful because it strengthened the business case for investing time and money and effort in this. Clearly there is something we can do. Other institutions are doing better than Manchester at the moment in getting that research out to wider audiences. So what could we do about it? And this led us to do a pilot study looking at a number of ideas. So we've got a pilot project going beyond compliance, going beyond the tick box that we're making stuff open access to other measures we can use to push research out more open. There are three things we've been doing. We've worked with central marketing in the university to provide them with data to promote what we call the research beacons. So there are strategic big research themes at Manchester which we really push more widely. We've worked with one school in particular where they had an interest in this to test the value of something very simple, just responding to them. When the paper was deposited, responding with an email saying, great, you've deposited your paper, it's going to go open access. Here are the five things you can do that would help you get that paper out there even more. It's open, but how are people going to find it? Try doing these things and we're measuring how well that's working. And also tapping the potential of a very highly mediated open access deposit service at Manchester. You can see here, we do this thing we call the open access gateway, so academics don't upload their papers to our Chris themselves. They drag and drop it, they give us very minimal metadata. I tend to like to say to them, all you've got to do is write the paper. We'll do the rest in terms of getting the stuff out, getting it open access, working out what sort of open access and all that. So they drag it into this gateway and we've put a tick box there for them to tick to say, I think this research might attract media interest, so touch on me and talk to me about how you can help me do that. And we talked to the university's media relations team, they talked to the academic and then the university helps and invests in that academics research and getting it out to a wider audience. So the research beacons, these are interdisciplinary, big, really high priority strategic research commitments where Manchester feels it has real strength. So they're materials, advanced materials, cancer, energy, global inequalities and industrial biotechnology. And late last year we worked as part of this project with our central university marketing team to do more to engage our audiences with video messages that they were putting out about the beacons. So we did a bit of in-house technical development work, we used a number of our content and subscription tools to inform marketing's campaigns. And this is where it gets a bit frustrating for me because I'm not allowed to tell you how we did it. So there's a bit of an irony there to talk about openness, but I'm not allowed to tell you this bit because it gives marketing think it gives them a competitive edge. So I think we're doing something interesting here that others aren't doing. And I think it's interesting to me because we've talked about its competition versus collaboration thing over the last few days and this is a really interesting example of it. I am frustrated that I'm not sharing the methodology with you, but part of me is also thinking the library is doing something so important for the institution. They want it to be a trade secret. How cool is that? Yay. So what I am going to show you, I'm allowed to show you, is some results, which is good. So there's a whole range of criteria they use to measure whether or not this is working and I've just chosen three. So in 2016, when we gave them no help whatsoever, they ran a video campaign and you can see the number of views, kind of if you can read the numbers, 32,000 views, 402 tweet engagements. Overall the cost per engagement to the marketing budget was £1.15. We've helped them on three campaigns at the end of 2017 and you can see, without reading the numbers, you can see the difference. You know, we've trebled video views, we've quadrupled tweets engagements, we've reduced the cost per engagement from £1.15 to around £15p and this is why they're so chuffed. I think this is really useful and we're really pleased to be able to help the university do something like this. So I've got a few more examples to give you. So I mentioned the Open Research Forum a little bit earlier. So we decided in our open access week thinking last year that we would go beyond the usual, this is open access, this is how you do it, this is gold, this is green, blah, blah, to something a bit more interesting. So we wondered about how useful it would be to bring researchers together in an event where it was very much researcher-led rather than library-led. For them to share their thoughts and views, concerns, experiences with open research. So we organised it, we did all the admin, we facilitated it, we brought it all together. I stood up and said how great this was at the beginning and then sat down and researchers spoke and there were a couple of workshoppy things as well and you probably can't read the agenda there. We had quite a full programme of different things going on. And this was interesting. I think we would say it was a qualified success. I mean, as with these things, often with these things, whatever the topic, getting researchers to find time to come is a challenge. And we did have 80 people book, but of course on the day I think we probably had around 30 people attend. But the speakers were great. The engagement in the day was really good. And it was clear there was a role for the library in fostering and stimulating these sorts of networks. What you see here is a couple of our academics, Dr Lemise Hassan and Dr Sarah Fox, talking about something called the Brain Bank, which is a blog for science communication to a general audience which has quite some good traction in the north west of England. And they were amongst a number of researchers representing pharmacy, optometry, health sciences, physics, etc. And this talk was a success story. It really talked about how well this was working for them in terms of getting their research to new audiences. But we also got some challenging conversations as well, which I was really pleased about. Research is really thinking hard about the topics and we're prepared to talk about the difficult issues. So we heard, for example, about the tensions between being an open researcher or the challenges of being an open researcher when you work in something like mental health research or even more challenging animal testing or research that uses animal testing. What are the obstacles and the challenges for you in that field? One of our speakers spoke about the challenges of open from the perspective of a busy researcher who understands its value, who gets it, but doesn't have that missionary zeal for open access, which motivates some of the most passionate open access advocates. They very memorably compared them to vegans and I don't think he meant all vegans, so apologies to any vegans in the audience. But he was observing that if you do something you strongly believe to be ethically right, you can be in danger of being so forthright passionate and confident in your views that your behaviour has the opposite effect to that which you intend it to have and you really turn your colleagues off. And I'm sure we all know an open access evangelist who we might want to calm down occasionally. I'm hoping it's not me, but I can certainly think of people where I sometimes think, okay, if you just calm down a bit now that would really help, because it's not really engaging people, it's just making things go away. Naming no names, we could have a competition of who we think these people are perhaps later. So it was great, they were challenging discussions, it was interdisciplinary, it was bringing different people together, they were saying, well this is what it's like for me in my field, I'm interested to know if that's general or if it doesn't happen to you in your field. We had a sort of bit of amicable jousting between biology and physics about who's the most open and who's done it the longest and that sort of thing. And so we're going to build on this and we're going to work together and thinking back to the paper before mine, we're working very closely with our research office and our research administrators to build this into ref preparation. So it's not just about us doing this independently as a library, it's part of something called Open Access Week which maybe a lot of people don't know about, but it's building it into a programme of awareness raising and development geared towards the research excellence framework and what our researchers need to know. Okay, so we're lucky enough at Manchester to have a small open access fund which isn't RCUK money, it's a relatively modest fund which we use to pay for open access costs for people who have not got funding council money behind them and want to go open access and we want to encourage them and we don't want to say no because you haven't got a block grant eligible for the block grant and we started to use things like open access monograph funding. But we looked at this fund and we thought, well you know, do we just want to pay APCs for this or do we want to do other things? And we got the approval of our governance committee around open research to spend that money in more innovative ways. So one of the things we did was we sponsored a place, Manchester University Library sponsored a place, something called OpenCon, which is an international open research conference aimed at students in early career academics. And we ran a little competition and we got people to apply and we awarded the place to Dr. Rachel Ainsworth who is an early career researcher at Chodrell Bank. And she went to the conference and submitted a great application and it allowed her to go. And my next slide, there she is. So she attended OpenCon along with Rosie Higman. Several people have used the word poached this in the last few days about staff in this area. We poached Rosie from Cambridge, thanks Danny. And Rosie's brilliant and we're really pleased to have her from Cambridge. And Cambridge will be really upset if they've lost her but Rosie's one of our RDM library and she went along with Rachel to OpenCon. And Rachel is one of the conditions of the award was asked to blog on the library's research blog afterwards about her experiences. And it's very clear to me, it inspired her, it infused her, she was already passionate, she wouldn't have got a place if she wasn't. But it really gave us some new ideas, it allowed her to mix with her peers internationally, to talk about openness in that context. And I think that was really helpful. And it was about the same cost as an APC. So I think it's really as money worth well spent. I'm getting there. So a couple of other things briefly before I finish. The University of Manchester launched a new postgraduate certificate in higher education aimed at its staff a few years ago. I think we're into what a Katie third year of that program now. And this was initially aimed at trying to address that imbalance between research and teaching and trying to get more academics teaching qualified. But of course you know what it's like when you start trying to talk to academics about going on teaching courses. And it morphed into something a little bit different. So it's a postgraduate certificate looking at higher education across the piece, not just at teaching but all the issues around higher education. And it's open to our academics and it's open to our professional staff as well. And the library for each of the years this has run has run an optional 15 credit, an elective 15 credit module on open knowledge and higher education. And this has been another good way of getting colleagues across the university to really think about the issues. And some of them genuinely have not thought about these issues before us all depending on which you know what their context was, what their role and department was. We run it openly obviously it would be mad if we ran this and didn't. So all the content is up on the medium logging platform. You can go and find this and see it and see what people have been writing. And this is just one example as you've got a senior lecturer in biochemistry thinking very hard about the topic of open science in a way that they wouldn't have done without going on this course. So it's not just open research and I used the word research in a tweet about open earlier and my colleague Katie reminded me that we all keep doing that. And openness can be about everything in higher education. Who have talked about openness in libraries and in culture. What about open teaching and learning, open learning, objects, MOOCs and this course covers all of that and really really satisfyingly as well. It's run by colleagues in the teaching and learning team in the library not in the research services team. So it's widening out the library's interests and expertise in the subject of open. So just to finish on the culture piece. So a few couple of two years ago we ran an exhibition at John Ryan's library called Magic Witches and Devils. And at this point I decided I really wanted to call this presentation Dinosaurs, Dolphins and Devils but I was too late and Melanie wouldn't let me change it which is a real shame. But fair enough. So this was the start of us thinking about how we do exhibitions differently, how we use special collections differently, how we work with our academics who are researching our special collections differently. So we become known as a space in which academics could exhibit their research and run their exhibition in the Rhyland's library. And we've started conversations with them to think much more of an audience-led approach to make sure library staff are partners on these exhibitions. To think about the visitor engagement piece and to think about the target audiences and who we're trying to reach of these exhibits. And make sure that it's all in line with the library's interpretation strategy so we present a consistent tone of voice. And this is part of the start of a journey now working with our academics much more effectively. Again, in terms of wider impact we'll make a much better impact with those exhibitions if we think more carefully about the audiences and what we're trying to do than we were before. So I'm pretty much done. I just wanted to mention that we've finished a strategic plan, we've got a new strategic plan which is not as imaginatively titled as the previous strategic plan, I just noticed. But this embeds openness. So open research, openness generally and openness throughout the library are commitments in the next few years of our strategy. So we're in an early stage at the moment, in a couple of years' time one of my colleagues will come back and tell you how wonderful it's all been. Thank you very much.