“With $350,000 in support from The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, [the University of Delaware’s Saleem Ali] will create an open-access repository for existing global knowledge around colored gemstones and target critical research necessary to surmount challenges facing individuals involved in colored gemstone mining and manufacturing….”
Abstract: Providing local access to locally produced content is a primary goal of the Institutional Repository (IR). Guidelines, requirements, and workflows are among the ways in which institutions attempt to ensure this content is deposited and preserved, but some content is always missed. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, the library implemented a service called LANL Research Online (LARO), to provide public access to a collection of publicly shareable LANL researcher publications authored between 2006 and 2016. LARO exposed the fact that we have full text for only about 10% of eligible publications for this time period, despite a review and release requirement that ought to have resulted in a much higher deposition rate. This discovery motivated a new effort to discover and add more full text content to LARO. Autoload attempts to locate and harvest items that were not deposited locally, but for which archivable copies exist. Here we describe the Autoload pipeline prototype and how it aggregates and utilizes Web services including Crossref, SHERPA/RoMEO, and oaDOI as it attempts to retrieve archivable copies of resources. Autoload employs a bootstrapping mechanism based on the ResourceSync standard, a NISO standard for resource replication and synchronization. We implemented support for ResourceSync atop the LARO Solr index, which exposes metadata contained in the local IR. This allowed us to utilize ResourceSync without modifying our IR. We close with a brief discussion of other uses we envision for our ResourceSync-Solr implementation, and describe how a new effort called Signposting can replace cumbersome screen scraping with a robust autodiscovery path to content which leverages Web protocols.
Judy Luther offered an insightful birds-eye view of the burgeoning preprints landscape at Scholarly Kitchen yesterday. As she mentioned, the Center for Open Science is contributing to preprints with a free, open infrastructure to support preprint services across scholarly communities. Here’s a brief summary of where we are, where we are heading, and what it all means.
“Psychological Science is now introducing some minor changes designed to increase the frequency and ease with which editors and reviewers of submissions can access data and materials as part of the peer-review process. I anticipate that, in addition to enhancing the review process, these changes will further increase the percentage of Psychological Science articles for which researchers can quickly and easily access data and materials postpublication. The changes we are introducing are tweaks and nudges, not radical shifts. In the following, I explain the changes and why they are worth undertaking.”
“Green OA would be an easy solution because it sounds like OA and seems to interfere minimally with current publishing mechanisms, but I will argue that it is an expensive halfway house with limited benefit to the scientific community or indeed the public. If we want OA to work in a sustainable manner for papers in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, it has to be gold and not green. And even if we don’t care about peer review or quality control by journals, there is a better solution than institutional green OA for disseminating articles: the posting of preprints….”
Abstract: The adoption of open access (OA) policies that require participation rather than request it is often accompanied by concerns about whether such mandates violate researchers’ academic freedoms. This issue has not been well explored, particularly in the Canadian context. However the recent adoption of an OA policy from Canada’s major funding agencies and the development of the Fair access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) in the United States has made addressing the issue of academic freedom and OA policies an important issue in academic institutions. This paper will investigate the relationship between OA mandates and academic freedom with the context of the recent OA policy at the University of Windsor as a point of reference. While this investigation concludes that adopting OA policies that require faculty participation at the institutional level should not be an issue of academic freedom, it is important to understand the varied factors that contribute to this tension. This includes misunderstandings about journal based (gold) and repository based (green) OA, growing discontent about increased managerialism in universities and commercialization of research, as well as potential vagueness within collective agreements’ language regarding academic freedom and publication. Despite these potential roadblocks, a case can be made that OA policies are not in conflict with academic freedom given they do not produce the harms that academic freedom is intended to protect.
Abstract: Last week, Mike Taylor discussed his concerns on institutional repositories as an adequate solution to the open access problem and asked Green OA advocates to address these problems. In response, Natalia Madjarevic, Dave Puplett, and Neil Stewart clarify the existing capabilities of institutional repositories and highlight the powerful transitional role they can play in providing greater access and benefits for individuals, institutions and disciplines.
“Since 2010, Cornell’s sustainability planning initiative has aimed to reduce arXiv’s financial burden and dependence on a single institution, instead creating a broad-based, community-supported resource. arXiv’s funding and governance for the current operation (Classic arXiv) is based on a membership program engaging libraries and research laboratories worldwide that represent the repository’s heaviest institutional users. As of February 2017, we have 206 members representing 25 countries. arXiv’s sustainability plan is founded on and presents a business model for generating revenues and a set of governance, editorial, and financial principles. Cornell University Library (CUL), the Simons Foundation, and a global collective of institutional members support arXiv financially. The financial model for 2013–2017 entails three sources of revenues:
CUL provides a cash subsidy of $75,000 per year in support of arXiv’s operational costs. In addition, CUL makes an in-kind contribution of all indirect costs, which currently represents 37% of total operating expenses.
The Simons Foundation contributes $100,000 per year ($50,000 prior to 2016) in recognition of CUL’s stewardship of arXiv. In addition, the Foundation matches $300,000 per year of the funds generated through arXiv membership fees.
Each member institution pledges a five-year funding commitment to support arXiv. Based on institutional usage ranking, the annual fees are set in four tiers from $1,500 to $3,000.
In 2016, Cornell raised approximately $515,000 through membership fees from 201 institutions and the total revenue (including CUL, Simons Foundation direct contributions, and online fundraising) is around $1,015,000. We remain grateful for the support from the Simons Foundation that encouraged long-term community support by lowering arXiv membership fees and making participation affordable to a broad range of institutions. This model aims to ensure that the ultimate responsibility for sustaining arXiv remains with the research communities and institutions that benefit from the service most directly.”