Scholarly Communication Report: Final Draft

“FINDINGS
1. Researchers are embracing non-traditional modes of scholarly output. 
2. Researchers are interested in sharing their work more broadly and more meaningfully than they have in the past.
3. Researchers feel a tension between their desire to create and share broadly and the pressures of tenure and promotion.
4. Researchers view the library as a trusted authority with whom they
would like to partner in advocacy and new scholarly production….”

New collaborative effort to develop a national digital ebooks platform for libraries announced | DPLA

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), The New York Public Library (NYPL), and LYRASIS are pleased to announce a new collaboration to help provide all public libraries with a free, open, library-controlled platform for managing their ebook and audiobook services….

The DPLA Exchange (https://exchange.dp.la), launched in 2017 and now providing access to over 300,000 titles including thousands of openly-licensed works, offers a new model for a library-centered marketplace for ebooks and audiobooks. …”

Spotlight on Open Access Monographs: Collecting Stories from LIBER Libraries – LIBER

To investigate the activities and strategies already in place across LIBER’s network, we have created a survey to capture the many ways in which libraries work with OA books among the communities we serve.

We invite respondents from LIBER libraries to address questions such as:

  • How can libraries create workflows and funding mechanisms to encourage OA book publishing?
  • What kind of training is needed for library staff to adapt to the developments?
  • Can you support OA book publishing without starting your own university press?

Please submit your responses to the survey by the end of 17 May 2019….”

Revisiting controlled digital lending post-ReDigi | Wu | First Monday

This paper looks at the recent Redigi court decision and discusses its impact on controlled digital lending programs (CDL) by libraries. As there are notable differences in facts between Redigi and CDL programs, the decision should have minimal impact on the framework designed to digitize and lend library materials within the United States….”

Swiss consortium pledges 216,000 Eur to DOAJ and SHERPA/RoMEO – News Service

“We are delighted to announce that the Consortium of Swiss Academic Libraries, comprising sixteen libraries and the Swiss National Science Foundation, is the third national consortium to commit to the SCOSS initiative.

swissuniversities, the Rectors’ Conference of Swiss Higher Education Institutions, contributes approximately 50% of the total costs in the framework of the Swiss National Strategy for Open Access….”

Swiss consortium pledges 216,000 Eur to DOAJ and SHERPA/RoMEO – News Service

“We are delighted to announce that the Consortium of Swiss Academic Libraries, comprising sixteen libraries and the Swiss National Science Foundation, is the third national consortium to commit to the SCOSS initiative.

swissuniversities, the Rectors’ Conference of Swiss Higher Education Institutions, contributes approximately 50% of the total costs in the framework of the Swiss National Strategy for Open Access….”

Welcome to “No Big Deal?”: News and Links About the Cost, Value, and Sustainability of Big Journal Bundles

Today we are launching No Big Deal?, a new feature of UVA Library News that will track the latest events and scholarship about the biggest vendors serving research libraries like ours. Tracking, shaping, and responding to this landscape has always been part of what the Library does, and we would like to share some of what we are seeing, doing, and thinking with you, the faculty, students, and researchers who use our collections.

Big changes are shaking up the way research libraries around the world think about the biggest line items in our budgets, the journal bundles we call “Big Deals.” In particular, we’re following stories about libraries pushing back and even walking away completely from unsustainable deals. Increasingly bold initiatives abroad, from research funders and national-level university groups like those in GermanySwedenNorway, and France, also merit attention. Global efforts to expand open access and contain subscription costs are sure to affect the ecosystem in the US….”

If Research Libraries and Funders Finance Open Access: Moving Beyond Subscriptions and APCs | Willinsky | College & Research Libraries

Abstract:  Following the examples of SCOAP3, in which libraries fund open access, and eLife, in which funding agencies have begun to directly fund open access scholarly publishing, this study presents an analysis of how creatively combining these two models might provide a means to move toward universal open access (without APCs). This study calculates the publishing costs for the funders that sponsor the research and for the libraries that cover unsponsored articles for two nonprofit biomedical publishers, eLife and PLOS, and the nonprofit journal aggregator BioOne. These entities represent a mix of publishing revenue models, including funder sponsorship, article processing charges (APC), and subscription fees. Using PubMed filtering and manual-sampling strategies, as well as publicly available publisher revenue data, the study found that, in 2015, 86 percent of the articles in eLife and PLOS acknowledge funder support, as do 76 percent of the articles in the largely subscription journals of BioOne. Such findings can inform libraries and funding agencies, as well as publishers, in their consideration of a direct-payment open access model, as the study (a) demonstrates the cost breakdown for funder and library support for open access among this sample of X articles; (b) posits how publishing data-management organizations such as Crossref and ORCID can facilitate such a model of funder and library per-article open access payments; and (c) proposes ways in which such a model offers a more efficient, equitable, and scalable approach to open access across the disciplines than the prevailing APC model, which originated with biomedical publishing.