This packet lets any reader check the official sources and all six published assessments. It evaluates public discoverability, not institutional prestige, research quality, or the private quality of services.
Reviewer declaration
Reviewer name and affiliation: __________________________________
Relevant expertise: ____________________________________________
Conflict with this institution: □ None □ Described below
Conflict note: _________________________________________________
Independence confirmed: □ Yes □ No
Public attribution consent: □ Yes □ No
First-pass summary
Berkeley stands out for the breadth of its scholarly-communication and information-policy expertise, backed by lifecycle data support.
The library explicitly covers author rights, contracts, privacy, text and data mining, and responsible AI alongside open access.
Create a central author journey that adds visible manuscript readiness and journal-submission support.
Dimension review
Confirm only when the note is supported by the cited institution-owned pages. A missing public signal means it was not discoverable in the reviewed evidence, not that the service does not exist.
A researcher can find a coherent support hub, subject expertise, and a clear route to help.
Data and scholarly-communication services are prominent, though the full support journey is distributed.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
The institution offers practical help with searching, evidence synthesis, citations, and research discovery.
Subject expertise, research consultations, and data discovery support evidence work across disciplines.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Researchers can find guidance for writing, reporting, publication strategy, and preparing work for submission.
Publishing consultations and scholarly-policy expertise assist authors, with less emphasis on manuscript editing or submission templates.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Public support covers publishing options, open access, rights, repositories, and author-cost questions.
Scholarly Communication and Information Policy provides unusually broad expertise in open access, rights, contracts, privacy, and AI.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Researchers can access data-management, reproducibility, research-integrity, and responsible-AI guidance.
Data-management consultation covers planning, security, metadata, publishing, sharing, and reproducibility.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Help is actionable through consultations, workshops, templates, accessible pages, and current maintenance.
Direct specialist email and consultation routes are clearly available.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Official evidence review
The office advises on open access, copyright, author rights, contracts, licensing, privacy, text and data mining, and AI-related information policy.
Supports: Findability, Manuscript, Publishing, Integrity and data, Access
Source resolves and is institution-owned: □ Yes □ No
The program offers consultation and training before, during, and after research on plans, security, metadata, workflows, publishing, and sharing.
Supports: Evidence, Integrity and data, Access
Source resolves and is institution-owned: □ Yes □ No
Independent outcome
Outcome: □ Confirmed □ Corrected
Required note: ________________________________________________________________
Official evidence supporting any correction: _______________________________________
Reviewed on (YYYY-MM-DD): __________________
Keep going
Find another practical resource or follow a guided publishing path when you want deeper support across the process.
