D3.3 Report on the gap analysis results_Under EC review

This gap analysis is an important step in the collective building of standards for institutional publishing, which are a key part of the DIAMAS project. Its main aim is to help the transition from the first version of the Extensible Quality Standard in Institutional Publishing (EQSIP 1.0) to the second one (EQSIP 2.0), which will be co-constructed with stakeholders, and more specifically institutional publishers (IPs).

To perform this analysis, we aim to understand differences between EQSIP 1.0 and current IP practices. On the one hand, we took the standard built by the project based on publicly available norms and recommendations, EQSIP 1.0, as a starting point for this analysis. In order to do so, EQSIP 1.0 has been divided into 103 items. On the other hand, information on the current practices of IPs were identified via various channels and methods. Three sources were used: the data gathered through the DIAMAS survey, a specific web coding operation to systematically complement survey data, and finally, focus groups with survey respondents to raise precise points identified through quantitative data.

This report is organised in four major parts. The first one details the methodology of this gap analysis. The second one successively considers each of the seven core components of EQSIP and provides an analysis of their items. It draws on the three sources we have used during our investigations. The third part develops a different view on the gaps partly identified in the descriptive section. The analysis here aims to characterise different types of gaps made explicit with regard to the EQSIP 1.0 standards. It devotes space to participants' views and judgments of the focus groups with respect to wording, misunderstanding, relevance or appropriateness of  EQSIP 1.0. Based on this analysis, the final section of this report lists recommendations for the next steps of the project. It underlines current blind spots that will have to be investigated in order to build a consensual and comprehensive EQSIP 2.0.

Considering the limitations of the data, comparison was only possible for 66 of them. On that subset, there are a very few EQSIP 1.0 items (N=8) that are clearly aligned with a majority of IPs. Conversely, the remaining part is split into two groups: one group is composed of a significant portion of EQSIP 1.0 items (N=26) that are not aligned to most of IPs, and another similar share (N=26) for which the situations are contrasted (sometimes answers clearly opposing two or three groups, or being spread across a variety of positions). Some EQSIP 1.0 items (N=6) are also too poorly covered by the sources of our survey to draw any appropriate conclusions. Broadly speaking, this quantitative breakdown into four categories shows that gaps are numerous, and sometimes significant, between the EQSIP 1.0 standards and the IPs' answers to our survey, focus group discussions, or public statements on their websites.

These gaps measured via the survey are often difficult to interpret, even when completed with qualitative information from the focus group interactions. However, the valuable feedback from IP representatives brings into focus the ambiguity of words and expressions — not to mention the language barrier – as 95% of our respondents were not natively English-speaking people. It also underlines differences in framing, that is, the ways in which the entire EQSIP 1.0 is being read, socialised, and internalised. This feedback has allowed us to identify four distinct types of gaps between the stakeholders (EQSIP 1.0 on the one hand and IPs on the other): 

a/ Social gaps: some practices, categories or norms existing in one stakeholder group are unknown, irrelevant, or ignored by the other stakeholder group. Here, some IPs clearly pointed out the resource-independent approach of EQSIP 1.0., while underlying their own financial and infrastructural limitations.

b/ Moral gaps: some values shared by one stakeholder group are viewed with indifference or worse by another stakeholder group. This is clearly the case of some EDI norms, which appear as either not justified or even counterproductive by some IPs.

c/ Interpretative gaps: while both stakeholder groups share a common goal, they don't agree on its interpretation, in particular due to linguistic or pragmatic differences. That was clearly the case for some technical norms, which some IPs consider impossible to comply with in the near future, 

d/ Practical gaps: there is an agreement on every other level, but actualisation of a standard is problematic, whether it is for financial, technical, staff capacity or other reasons. Question around the currently implicit timeframe of EQSIP 1.0, or relative importance and priority of its items have been raised.

 

Based on these results, 12 general recommendations which are aimed both at DIAMAS members who will participate in the co-construction of EQSIP 2.0, and stakeholders who will be invited to this co-construction process were made. They are formulated to frame discussion on the structure of EQSIP, its content and phrasing. To sum them up, they take into account the diversity of IP organisations and ecosystems, reflected in many contrasted situations for current gaps with EQSIP 1.0. They also present different choices that have to be made for EQSIP 2.0 (extension to service providers, specific requirements for output types, technological neutrality,...) . Finally they point out at the current unknown gaps due to data limitation, that have to be investigated into the co-construction process.