Open Access Compliance & Author Workflow Auditor
Audit open access compliance and streamline author publishing workflows
What You Can Do
This skill audits research manuscripts and author workflows against open access funder mandates (NIH, NSF, European Commission) and institutional policies. It validates licensing terms, repository suitability, and compliance timelines, then generates detailed remediation guidance to help researchers meet funder requirements and institutional standards.
Features
Validates publications against NIH Public Access Policy, NSF Public Access Policy, European Commission Open Access requirements, and other funder-specific mandates with compliance timelines.
Analyzes license terms (CC-BY, CC0, CC-BY-NC) to confirm usage rights, reuse permissions, and alignment with open access standards.
Reviews manuscript submission processes, publication timelines, and author responsibilities against best-practice open access workflows and institutional policies.
Recommends appropriate repositories (PubMed Central, arXiv, institutional repos, disciplinary databases) based on discipline, funder requirements, and embargo periods.
Monitors publication embargo windows, calculates compliance deadlines, and flags manuscripts approaching funder deposit requirements.
Validates ORCID links, funding attribution, author name standardization, and institutional affiliation metadata required for compliance.
Produces structured audit reports detailing compliance status, gaps, and risk areas with executive summaries for institutional reviews.
Provides step-by-step instructions to fix compliance issues, including repository deposit workflows, license corrections, and metadata updates.
Example Output
Compliance Audit Report
- ✅ Licensed under CC-BY (compliant with NIH mandate)
- ❌ Not deposited in PubMed Central (required within 12 months of NIH funding)
- ⚠️ ORCID missing from author record (reduces discoverability)
Remediation Steps
- Register ORCID and add to manuscript
- Deposit full-text PDF to PubMed Central by [DATE]
- Add funding statement: "This research was funded by NIH grant R01-XXXXX"
Funder Compliance Summary NIH: 40% compliant | NSF: 85% compliant | EC: Requires attestation
What's Included
- Multi-Funder Compliance Framework: Pre-built compliance rules for NIH, NSF, European Commission, UKRI, and Wellcome Trust with current mandate versions and embargo periods.
- Workflow Assessment Matrix: Structured evaluation framework for author processes including manuscript preparation, submission timing, licensing negotiation, and repository deposit.
- Repository Directory & Matching Logic: Curated list of 50+ disciplinary and institutional repositories with matching rules for journals, disciplines, and funder requirements.
- Creative Commons License Decision Tree: Interactive guide to CC licensing options (BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, CC0) with funder compatibility and reuse implications.
- Compliance Audit Report Template: Structured markdown template with sections for funder status, licensing validation, repository recommendations, and action items.
Who It's For
- Research administrators and institutional compliance officers
- Academic librarians and scholarly communication specialists
- Researchers and faculty managing grant-funded publications
- Grant managers and research office staff
Best For
- Pre-publication compliance audits of grant-funded research
- Funder mandate verification and remediation guidance
- Institutional open access policy implementation and tracking
- Author workflow optimization for open access requirements
- Repository selection and deposit planning
You might also like
Streamline your systematic reviews by using Claude to screen abstracts against inclusion criteria, extract structured data from full texts, and synthesize findings across studies. Reduce manual screening time by 60-80% while maintaining rigorous documentation of your review methodology. Claude becomes your collaborative partner throughout the entire evidence synthesis workflow, from protocol planning to final data synthesis.
You can streamline the entire editorial process by automating peer review coordination, synthesizing reviewer feedback into coherent editorial decisions, and generating professional correspondence at scale. The skill helps you manage manuscript timelines, track reviewer assignments, and produce consistent decision documents that maintain your journal's professional standards while saving hours of editorial work.
This skill guides you through systematic reference interviews that uncover patron information needs and develop evidence-based search strategies. You'll learn to ask targeted clarifying questions, assess information-seeking behaviors, and generate tailored resource recommendations. The result: more satisfied patrons, more efficient research outcomes, and consistent, high-quality reference services.
You systematically verify OSINT source credibility by identifying when secondary sources echo unverified claims, detecting coordinated information laundering across multiple outlets, and establishing audit trails for source evaluation decisions. The framework enables you to generate confidence levels defensible in intelligence briefings, recognize attribution spoofing, and distinguish genuine primary sources from recycled or manipulated information—critical for assessments that inform operational decisions.
This skill provides a comprehensive framework for conducting structured peer reviews that balance technical rigor with constructive feedback. It systematically evaluates code quality, architecture decisions, testing, security, and documentation while delivering specific, prioritized recommendations. You'll ensure consistent, professional review standards across your team and help developers grow through clear, actionable guidance.
This skill analyzes grant requirements, interprets funder regulations, and coordinates compliance workflows for research institutions. You'll receive structured compliance guidance, multi-funder requirement synthesis, deadline tracking, and risk assessments that help you navigate complex sponsored research administration with confidence.
This skill guides you through a comprehensive peer review process using structured assessment templates, detailed evaluation rubrics, and evidence-based feedback frameworks. You'll generate detailed, constructive reviews that identify both strengths and weaknesses, provide actionable recommendations, and produce consistent evaluations suitable for academic journals, grant agencies, or conference committees.
This skill systematically reviews your research proposal against funder requirements, institutional policies, and compliance checkpoints to identify issues before submission. It validates proposal structure, budget justifications, and timelines while flagging common violations that could trigger desk rejections or revision requests. You'll receive a detailed compliance report with specific issues, severity levels, and actionable remediation steps for each funder type.