Digital Scores and Libretti – CURIOSity Digital Collections

“The Loeb Music Library digitizes scores and libretti selected for their rare or unique natures and their popularity as objects of research and teaching.

By providing online access to these items, the library makes primary source materials available for use at Harvard and around the world.

This digital collection includes manuscripts, first editions, and early editions of music from the 17th to the early 20th century. Many items, such as variant editions and annotated proofs of 19th-century operas and related libretti, are meant to be seen and used together. As a group, they give scholars a window into the study of historical performance practice….”

BISG Study Finds Path Forward for Open Access Books | CCC’s Beyond the Book

“A two-year research project funded by the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council reported in 2017 on the ominous health of academic book publishing. As the number of titles sold rose by nearly half, from 43,000 to 63,000 between 2005 and 2014, unit sales in the same period for academic books fell 13%, from 4.34 million copies to 3.76 million annually, a drop of nearly 600,000. According to a report in the Times of London Higher Education Supplement, that drop meant average sales per title fell from 100 to 60 books.

Any effort to save scholarly monograph publishing will rely on usage data, though that remains hard to come by. With a grant from the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the Book Industry Study Group and several other collaborators in the US and the UK recently undertook a review of factors holding back adoption of e-book monographs. The conclusion – granular and comparable data on users and usage of such works is needed to justify not only publishing programs, but also research activities….”

We are proud to announce the launch of our first preprint service, in collaboration with OSF Preprints

“Meet BodoArXiv, a preprint service for medieval studies:

Named after a Carolingian peasant made famous by historian Eileen Power (1889-1940), BodoArXiv gathers scholarly literature in medieval studies across the disciplines. It provides an open, non-profit repository for papers at different stages of gestation, including works that may later find themselves in article form and/or behind a paywall. Anyone can access and download any item on BodoArXiv freely and immediately, in adherence to the basic tenants of the Open Access movement. Beyond helping authors make their scholarship more visible and discoverable, BodoArXiv fosters collaboration and mentoring as a platform that supports various forms of peer review….”

We are proud to announce the launch of our first preprint service, in collaboration with OSF Preprints

“Meet BodoArXiv, a preprint service for medieval studies:

Named after a Carolingian peasant made famous by historian Eileen Power (1889-1940), BodoArXiv gathers scholarly literature in medieval studies across the disciplines. It provides an open, non-profit repository for papers at different stages of gestation, including works that may later find themselves in article form and/or behind a paywall. Anyone can access and download any item on BodoArXiv freely and immediately, in adherence to the basic tenants of the Open Access movement. Beyond helping authors make their scholarship more visible and discoverable, BodoArXiv fosters collaboration and mentoring as a platform that supports various forms of peer review….”

#metoo Digital Media Collection

“The #metoo Digital Media Collection is a digital project of the Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University. This project will document the digital footprint of the #metoo movement and the accompanying political, legal, and social battles in the United States and will collect social media, news articles, statements of denial and/or apology, Web-forum conversations, legislation, lawsuits, statistical studies, Fortune 500 companies’ employment manuals, hashtags related to #metoo, and more. The material in the collection will date from 2007 with the creation of the #metoo hashtag by Tarana Burke and will end when #metoo activity subsides. The collection will be made available for interdisciplinary research on #metoo….”

In Open Access’s Long Shadow – A view from the Humanities | Natale | 027.7 Zeitschrift für Bibliothekskultur / Journal for Library Culture

Abstract:  Historians have been in recent years among the most vocal critics against open access to scientific literature. Discussing the controversies they have triggered in Europe and in the USA, we argue that research on open access should be broadened chronologically and thematically. The first section recalls the very first debate on open access that took place among library professionals at the turn of the XXth century and points similarities with the present situation. The second section reviews the criticisms levelled by humanities disciplines against mandatory regulations on open access. The third section argues that the potential of open access for science democratization and knowledge dissemination may not be taken for granted and need further empirical assessment.

 

Open and Shut?: The Open Access Interviews: Edith Hall

“Why is open access so contentious? In large part, I think, because although OA began as a bottom-up revolution it was never widely embraced by researchers. However, OA advocates managed to persuade governments, funders and institutions that their colleagues should be compelled to embrace open access. This has seen a series of ever more stringent OA mandates being imposed on researchers, increasing the bureaucratic burden on them (amongst other things).

Monographs are a particularly contested area because of their length, their narrative form, and the licensing issues that this raises.

 

It has not helped that OA advocates promised open access would reduce the costs of scholarly communication. In reality, costs have risen.

 

This last point is particularly troublesome in the UK context as OA policies have been introduced without providing the necessary funding to support them. As a result, researchers can discover that they have been mandated to make their work open access but cannot afford to pay the article-processing charge (APC) needed if they want to satisfy the government’s preference for gold OA.

 

This has been a challenge even for researchers at wealthy and prestigious institutions. Last year, for instance, Oxford University library had to inform faculty that its OA fund had been exhausted and so they should delay submitting to journals until it had been replenished. 

 

At the same time, the bureaucracy surrounding OA compliance has become so complex that universities have had to recruit legions of support staff to interpret and manage the escalating number of policies (some of which have proved contradictory). Indeed, such is the complexity now that even specialist support staff can struggle to decode the rules.

 

In short, the UK OA policy environment is far too complex, and it is seriously underfunded. For researchers, this is frustrating and depressing….”