“These graphics illustrate the history of mergers and acquisitions in the library technology industry….”
“With support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) partners (Cornell University, Harvard University, Stanford University, and the University of Iowa’s School of Library and Information Science), in collaboration with the Library of Congress and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), are building a pathway for the cataloging community to begin shifting to linked data to describe library resources. LD4P2 builds on the foundational work of Linked Data for Production (LD4P) Phase 1 and Linked Data for Libraries Labs (LD4L Labs). More on LD4P2 Project Background and Goals….”
“Robert van der Vooren conducted a study commissioned by the National Library of Sweden about new ways of distributing publisher contract costs to Bibsam Consortium participants. The study is intended to be a basis when the Bibsam Consortium makes cost distribution future proof for full open access publishing….”
“Following the success of the first of our librarian focussed webinar series in October, we’re kicking off our first webinar of 2020 discussing How Libraries and Funders Can Drive APC Transparency. We’re joined by Ashley Farley, Associate Program Officer of Knowledge & Research Services at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ashley will share from her experience working at a major research funder and highlight the importance of working together with libraries to ensure publishers are more transparent with their Article Processing Charges….”
“The reality is that libraries are used to negotiate with legacy publishers about subscriptions, and there has been no historic need to negotiate with OA publishers about anything, as they already do exactly what librarians or Plan S/Coalition S and other government entities want them to do – but open access publishers do need support, and need it more than those “poor” publishers like Springer-Nature who wants the transformative deals (all APCs covered) but is screaming and kicking having to abandon their hybrid journals which allows them to double-dip (getting paid for subscriptions AND article processing fees). Why are we spending public tax money to “help” commercial entities to switch to a different business model because they didn’t understand the sign of times 20 years ago? The situation is similar to a government wanting to switch from Internal Combustion Engine cars to electroc cars nationwide, and not subsidizing the costs for buying from Tesla, but only throwing money at GM and BMW to fund their costs to switch production.
In my 20 years of publishing fully open access journals, we have not once received a single dime (or $) of funding from libraries (other OA publishers, like Frontiers, MDPI, Plos, have more muscle and may have institutional agreements, but as niche publisher we simply do not have the market size and staff to negotiate with hundreds of universities/libraries) – rather than being paid by libraries, it is all our authors paying from their research grants. The only exception is our recent deal with the University of California (which frankly seems to be the only institution having the vision to support native OA publishers) – but it remains to be seen if other libraries/consortia replicate this model (our emails to Project Deal and other libraries who made transformative deals and are coveering the APC of large publishers, asking them to match the conditions they gave to Wiley and Springer have not been responded to at all). And to be clear, if you want to go with the “quality argument”, keep in mind that 4 out of the 8 leading health informatics journals are published by us.
If the general model changes in the future from APCs being paid by authors/research grants towards libraries picking up these costs, libraries/funders must ensure an “open-access first” policy, where APCs of native open-access publishers and their journals are equally paid or even paid first (i.e. transformative agreements should only be made for journals where no OA journal are in existence and where there is significant demand to publish in a former subscription/hybrid journal). And by the way, don’t use Web of Science or Scopus for these assessments (rather use DOAJ)….”
“Institutional repositories are vital to knowledge curation in the digital environment, and the discussion of knowledge conversion has presented a systematic view of the roles IRs have in creating and sharing knowledge through digital technology. Knowledge conversion is a knowledge curation process allowing researchers, teaching faculty, administrators, staff, donors (of special collections and archival records), interviewees (in oral histories), cultural informants (in ethnography and folklore) to share data, information, and knowledge with a wider audience in a variety of ways known to academics and practitioners in the business community and various industries. There is, however, a vast epistemological ground in the social sciences (e.g., anthropology, ethnography) and the humanities (e.g., philosophy, history) where knowledge creation does not rely on curation technologies (such as IRs). In fact, authors may decide to curate their own works in their institutional repositories well after publishing in a formal venue such as a journal, conference proceeding, or book chapter. The use of the IR represents interests related to historical reflection and preservation, which is where finalized reports and data are available for viewing and further study. Knowledge curation through the IR further supports collaboration across organizational units that have relied for very long on data silos and departmental databases.”
Abstract: From long time open access has become important for libraries and information centres. Due to shrinking budget of libraries and continuous growth in open access journals and other information resources libraries are adopting and promoting open access. Many Libraries are moving from closed access to open access of resources. Every year nearly 10000 plus open access journals are coming in market so here librarians has to help their patrons to identify the correct journals for publish the research work and make funds available for APC charges for such journals. Librarians are supporting Open Access publishing and also playing an important role in promoting OA. But understanding importance of open access by user community is depend upon how actively that institute librarian promote OA. This paper deals about awareness of open Access among Indian Librarians Community the main aim of this study to get idea about Librarians view about open Access and various open access resources. Data is collected through online survey method from various Librarians group.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION Successful open access (OA) publishing in libraries requires careful guidance and organization. Support and services offered vary depending on available resources as well as the robustness of a library’s publishing program. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM This article describes the connection between publishing services and scholarly publishing literacy through examples from the University of South Florida (USF) Libraries. The USF Libraries’ OA publishing program includes journals, textbooks, conference proceedings, and more. Our program balances advocating for open access with advising for actions that serve our partners’ goals. This invites trust, sustainable relationships, and opportunities for new work. NEXT STEPS At the USF Libraries, more work must be done to formally assess our efforts. Our program will also explore new ways to support the ethical standards expected of libraries by pursuing stronger policies on diversity and inclusion. Using everyday work to demonstrate best practices is a manageable way to strengthen scholarly publishing efforts. We hope to continue growing our services, empowering our partners, and exploring our roles as advisors and advocates.
“As a former full-time PID person (until recently I was ORCID’s Director of Communications), I am convinced of the important role that persistent identifiers (PIDs) play in supporting a robust, trusted, and open research information infrastructure. We already have open PIDs for research people (ORCID iDs) and research outputs (DOIs), but what about research organizations? While organization identifiers do already exist (Ringgold identifiers, for example, have been widely adopted; Digital Science’s GRID is still relatively new), until recently there has been no truly open equivalent. But that’s changing, as you will learn in this interview with the team behind the newly launched Research Organization Registry—ROR….”
“The Shared Repository, currently a beta service, brings together the openly available research outputs produced by staff and research associates of six cultural and heritage organisations: the British Library; the British Museum; MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology); National Museums Scotland; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and Tate. Each partner has their own repository and is responsible for their own content, but users can also explore the combined content using the shared search from the homepage. Articles, book chapters, datasets, exhibition texts, conference presentations, blogs and many more types of our research are now discoverable and downloadable by researchers worldwide. The repository currently holds just a selection of outputs to give a flavour of our research activities, with many more to be added in the coming months….”