“Fundamentally, content licenses between KU Libraries and a publisher are about providing access to licensed content to KU students, faculty, and staff. Fine. This IR section of the T&F content license isn’t about that; it’s about them determining how we can support our institutional authors who publish in T&F journals. Since our IR is an institutional service for our authors, I don’t see why a publisher should have any voice in determining how we provide that service so long as we’re operating within the law. If KU didn’t have an open access policy then the impact would be negligible in the short term (notwithstanding the above critiques of 13.2.3, 13.2.4, and 13.3). I say in the short term because it might limit the ability of an institutional library to support a future OA policy should their faculty ever adopt and seek to implement one. Given the sustained growth of OA policies, that seems likely if this section becomes standard. This section seems directly intended to undermine Harvard-style (rights retention) institutional open access policies and tie institutions to author agreements (that the institution doesn’t sign) by codifying rights granted in those agreements in an institutional agreement. Content licenses arguably have nothing to do with how we support our faculty authors, so this has no place in a content license, IMO. Of course, that’s being challenged in the UC read and publish proposal to Elsevier, and there are isolated incidents of elite institutional libraries getting better deals for their faculty authors through these agreements. I wouldn’t presume to limit that kind of experimentation. However, anecdotally, I’ve heard of several attempts to add language to content agreements that would advance author rights, by requiring the publisher to provide accepted manuscripts for all institutionally-authored articles published in their journals, for example, which were categorically rejected by the publisher representatives. Why then should we not categorically reject their attempts to play the other side of that card, even if they weren’t problematic as I’ve described? If the only institutions who are able to successfully achieve better deals for their authors via content agreements are elite, where does that leave the rest of us? For our part, we have struck this whole IR section from our draft agreement and are waiting on a T&F reaction….”
Abstract: This research study compared four academic libraries’ approaches to curating the metadata of dataset submissions in their institutional repositories and classified them in one of four categories: no curation, pre-ingest curation, selective curation, and post-ingest curation. The goal is to understand the impact that curation may have on the quality of user-submitted metadata. The findings were 1) the metadata elements varied greatly between institutions, 2) repositories with more options for authors to contribute metadata did not result in more metadata contributed, 3) pre- or post-ingest curation process could have a measurable impact on the metadata but are difficult to separate from other factors, and 4) datasets submitted to a repository with pre- or post-ingest curation more often included documentation.
“The Open Archive for Media, Film, & Communication Studies. To launch in early 2019 on the Open Science Framework platform….”
“My previous blog post triggered a lot of interpretations on the actual content, extend and meaning of the amendments to the Belgian copyright law. The best response is the actual text, translated here….
Except for the potential loophole of the King (i.e. the Federal Government)’s good will who can, for some obscure reason (publishers’ lobbying ?) extend the embargo period in an undefined way, and which appears as a very weak point, the rest of the text is quite strong: the right to re-publish and re-use is mandatory and irrecusable. It overrides any previous contract between the author and the publisher, even anterior to the law itself.
Of course, one would presume it applies to Belgian citizens in a scholarly institution in Belgium, leaving a fuzzy zone when the author is working abroad transiently or when he/she is a coauthor among foreign researchers….”
“Having been released at the same time as the first announcement of Plan S, a very important modification of the Belgian copyright law has gone somewhat unnoticed and it should not have! It is indeed a major groundbreaker in the open access to public research communication. The law now allows authors of publicly funded research articles to retain the right to make their original manuscripts freely available, even if otherwise specified in their contract with the publisher. In terms of the legal protection of the researchers facing the increasingly frequent constraint on the part of funding bodies to make their publications available in Open Access, this law is of paramount importance. To my knowledge, it is the most progressive exception to a national copyright law worldwide to date….”
Abstract: While institutional repositories (IRs) often include a built-in search tool and/or are indexed by web search engines, some patrons go directly to the online library catalog with their information need. Rather than hope that users will stumble on the IR from the library website or assume that they will start their research with a Google search, librarians can enhance IR discoverability and usage by integrating its content into the library catalog. With strong teamwork, good communication, and a shared vision, this endeavor transforms the IR and library catalog from separate, siloed platforms into a more cohesive collections package. At the University of San Diego, librarians and administrators across three departments came together to share information and work in concert to explore the benefits of auto-harvesting IR content into the library catalog. Driven by a vision of enhancing discoverability and access, as well as promoting the IR and enriching the catalog, the team members worked cooperatively to identify specific IR collections appropriate for harvest, investigate technical logistics, consult outside vendors (including Innovative Interfaces, Inc./III and bepress), and experiment with implementation.
Abstract: In August 2017, NASIG approved and adopted a set of core competencies that can serve as a roadmap for a new Scholarly Communication Librarian working to promote and build collections for a new campus Institutional Repository. This presentation addressed how to utilize the specific competencies to scaffold priorities when building a new repository, including developing campus partnerships with administration, colleges, departments, faculty, and students. The Core Competencies can also be used to develop effective short- and long-term goals, both for the librarian and for the Institutional Repository, and can provide communication and outreach strategies to share those goals to the campus community.
“Having been asked to give feedback on the recent Plan S Implementation Guidelines for a working group, I thought I’d share my thoughts here. I’ve not really been keeping on top of the Plan S discussions, and given how late I am to the party, likely much of this has been said better elsewhere already. But anyway….”
The University of Nairobi OA Policy was approved in December 2012 by the Senate members, who supported it overwhelmingly, and signed by the Vice Chancellor. The OA IR is now online. The policy became the third OA policy in the country following two other OA mandates adopted by Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology’s (JKUAT) Senate in April 2012 and Strathmore University in 2011.
Collaboration on OA advocacy between the Medical Students Association of Kenya (MSAKE), the University of Nairobi Library and the office of DVC Research, Production and Extension of the University of Nairobi has been strengthened. This has proved to be a good strategy to reach students and to work with them to ensure success of OA initiatives.
Ten repositories have been set up at ten institutions that participated in DSpace installation trainings, half of them are already on the web with the others are on local Intranets (pending OA and IR policies approval by the relevant bodies).
Ten new OA and IR policies have been drafted, five of them have already been approved and five others are still pending approval by the Universities Management Boards and Senates.
Over 30 research institutions in Kenya are now aware of the importance of OA initiatives including the national policy makers. Government officials in ministries, top level managers in Higher Learning Institutions, researchers and students, ICT managers and the press are better informed about OA initiatives and many participants were ready to support their respective institutions in OA developments.
300 researchers, students, research administrators and managers, publishers and policy makers were trained, which resulted in increased awareness of OA.
Great impact on OA Initiatives in KLISC Member Institutions and in Kenya as a whole. Was able to sensitize different stakeholders on OA initiatives….”
Abstract: The future strategies for opening science have become important to libraries which serve scientific institutions by providing institutional repository infrastructures and services. Vilnius University Library provides such an infrastructure for Vilnius University, which is the biggest higher education institution in Lithuania (with more than 20,200 students, 1,330 academic staff members, and 450 researchers ), and manages services and infrastructure of the national open access repository eLABa and the national open access data archive MIDAS. As the new platforms of these repositories began operating in the beginning of 2015, new policies and routines for organizing work with scientific publications and data had to be implemented. This meant new roles for the Library and librarians, too. The University Senate approved the new Regulations of the Library on 13 June 2017 with the task to develop the scholarly communication tools dedicated to sustaining open access to information and open science. Thus, Vilnius University Library performs the leading role in opening science by providing strategic insights and solutions for development of services dedicated to researchers, students and the public in Lithuania. As it was not presented properly at the international level before, this article presents the case of Vilnius University Library which actively cooperates with other Lithuanian academic institutions, works in creating and coordinating policies, conducts research on the improvements and services of eLABa and MIDAS, and suggests and implements the integral solutions for opening science.