Next Gen Library Publishing partnership awarded $2.2M Arcadia grant to improve scholarly publishing infrastructure – Office of Scholarly Communication

“Educopia Institute and California Digital Library are pleased to announce an award in the amount of $2,200,000 from Arcadia—a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin—in support of the “Next Generation Library Publishing” project. 

Through this project, Educopia and its partner institutions—California Digital Library (CDL), Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR), Longleaf Services, LYRASIS, and Strategies for Open Science (Stratos)—will provide new publishing pathways for authors, editors, and readers by advancing and integrating open source publishing infrastructure to provide robust support for library publishing. …”

Survey of Academic Library Leadership: Evaluation of the Institutional Digital Repository

Abstract:  This 48-page report, based primarily on a survey of 73 largely research-oriented colleges and universities, presents the views of library directors, deans, university librarians and other high level library officials about the current state of and future plans for the library’s institutional digital repository.  The study helps its readers to answer questions such as:  how much are libraries currently spending on their repositories and how much do they plan to spend in the future?  How much staff labor is being spent on the repository and have staffs or use of staff time grown in recent years? How satisfied is upper library management with the digital repository? What are its plans for the repository over the next few years – for outreach, marketing, platforms, and more?

Data in the report is broken out by institutional type and size and other variables; for example data is presented separately for R1 and R2 level research institutions, for doctoral institutions and for all other types of college.  In addition, the data is broken out for some personal variables of the survey respondent, such as job title and age range.

Just of few of the report’s many findings are that:

More than 88% of the R1 level institutions in the sample had an institutional digital repository.
49.32% of survey participants felt that their institutional spending on their repositories would remain more or less the same over the next year.
Over the past three years private colleges have been more active than public ones in adding staff to their repositories.”

Reference Librarian/Scholarly Communication Coordinator – 105630 Job Opening in Pensacola, Florida – ALA JobLIST | Jobs in Library & Information Science & Technology

“As the Scholarly Communications Coordinator, responsibilities include:


Develop, implement, and coordinate scholarly communication services to expand the Library’s support of the creation and dissemination of UWF’s scholarly output.
Increase the knowledge of faculty, students, and staff through education, promotion, and outreach regarding scholarly communication topics such as open access, open educational resources, data management planning, scholarly identity, and research impact
Promote and grow the use of the campus’ Institutional Repository
Monitor and report on national scholarly communication trends, policy issues, and best practices….”

Libraries and Open Access

“Open Access (OA) is quickly becoming a ‘gold-standard’ for research quality internationally. A growing number of major research funders now require the outputs of the research that they support to be made OA. University libraries are playing a vital role in supporting this transition to open access. But in spite of early investment in library-based OA repositories, Australia continues to lag behind the United States and Western Europe in relation to the proportion of publications that its researchers make openly available. This project explores the intersection between cultural and implementation challenges facing libraries in Australia as they work to support a transition towards OA for research publications and data. Identifying practices and challenges specific to the Australian context, as well as opportunities to learn from international best practice in this space, will be a particular focus. Questions that the project will seek to answer include: * What do Australian librarians think researchers are doing in relation to OA? * What are Australian researchers actually doing? * How do the choices that Australian researchers make about where to deposit the OA version of their work compare to the choices made by researchers elsewhere in the world? * What do librarians think the barriers to open access are? * What do researchers think the barriers to open access are? * How do each of these groups frame their discussion of those barriers? * Where do non-institutional repositories and commercially supported services fit in? For example, are researchers using subject repositories (e.g. such as SSRN, H-Commons, or the Australian Policy Observatory) instead of institutional repositories? Are Universities choosing to pay for data deposit services like FigShare? Why? The project will draw on the large data sets and established data capabilities developed as part of the COKI project. This data provides new opportunities to explore patterns of repository choice and deposition at large scale, and to compare Australian patterns with those found elsewhere in the world. Quantitative approaches will be combined with qualitative perspectives, including surveys, interviews and ethnographic approaches….”

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers | Hanneke | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Objective: This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research.

Methods: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences.

Results: Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners.

Conclusion: Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty’s information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation. Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.

Narrowing the Gap Between Publication and Access: Is a Mandate Enough to Get Us Closer?[v1] | Preprints

Abstract:  Changes brought about by the Internet to Scholarly Communication and the spread of Open Access movement, have made it possible to increase the number of potential readers of published research dramatically. This two-phase study aims, at first, to assert the satisfaction of the potential for increased open access to articles published by authors at the University of Coimbra, in a context when there was no stimulus for the openness of published science other than an institutional mandate set by the University policy on Open Access (“Acesso Livre”). The satisfaction of the access openness was measured by observing the actual archiving behavior of researchers (either directly or through their agents). We started by selecting the top journal titles used to publish the STEM research of the University of Coimbra (2004-2013) by using Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index (SCI). These titles were available at the University libraries or through online subscriptions, some of them in open access (21%). By checking the journals’ policy at the time regarding self-archiving at the SHERPA/RoMEO service, we found that the percentage of articles in Open Access (OA) could rise to 80% if deposited at Estudo Geral, the Institutional Repository of the University of Coimbra, as prescribed by the Open Access Policy of the University. As we concluded by verifying the deposit status of every single paper of researchers of the University that published in those journals, this potential was far from being fulfilled, despite the existence of the institutional mandate and favorable editorial conditions. We concluded, therefore, that an institutional mandate was not sufficient by itself to fully implement an open access policy and to close the gap between publication and access. The second phase of the study, to follow, will rescan the status of published papers in a context where the Portuguese public funding agency, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, introduced in 2014 a new significant stimulus for open access in science. The FCT Open Access Policy stipulates that publicly funded published research must be available as soon as possible in a repository of the Portuguese network of scientific repositories, RCAAP, which integrates the Estudo Geral.

Is there a place for a Subscription Journal in an Open Access world?

“At the Annual Meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) in San Diego later this month [30 May, 2 p.m.] I will assert that yes, a subscription journal can continue its subscription business-model while effectively accelerating the transition of their discipline to Open Access—but only in the right circumstances, and only if a publisher adopts what I call “Maximum Dissemination” of the authors’ work, including elimination of its paywall….

Accepting an author’s final accepted manuscript (post peer-review) is the ideal point at which the publisher could take on the mantle of providing maximum dissemination of the author’s work.

Imagine at that point that a publisher informs the author as follows:


  • Congratulations. Your article “xxxxx” has now passed peer-review and has been accepted for publication in the Journal of yyy.
  • Part of our commitment to you is that we will seek maximum dissemination of your work, both the published version that we will now be preparing and your Author’s Accepted Manuscript (post peer-review) for those who do not yet subscribe to the Journal of yyy.
  • Upon publication of our published version we will archive your accepted manuscript in an Open Repository that meets all the requirements of sustainable accessibility. If you have a preference for which Open Repository, you’d like it submitted to, please check the appropriate box(s) below:
  • {The author’s home institution Institutional Repository}
  • {An Open Repository used by many in this particular discipline.}
  • {A National Repository used by scholars in the scholar’s home country.}
  • {etc.}…”

Principios y Valores – AmeliCA

[Undated] From Google’s English: 

Principles and values

Scientific knowledge generated with public funds is a common good and access to it is a universal right.
Open Access must be protected legally to avoid the appropriation of scientific knowledge for profit.
Open Access has no future or meaning without an evolution in the systems of evaluation to research.
The consolidation of Open Access must consider the transition to digital scientific communication as an essential axis.
The economic investment in Open Access must be consistent with its benefit to society, just as commercial solutions are paid.
The adverse economic scenarios that the AA faces must be overcome with work schemes based on collaboration and sustainability, favoring that the scientific publication continues sustained and led by the academy.
It is necessary to recognize the diversity of scientific journals and stop the pressures that seek to homogenize them. For their part, journals should support the strengthening of institutional repositories through the disappearance of embargo and assignment of rights policies.
The social impact of science is the basis of the existence of Open Access.
It is necessary to respect the different dynamics of generation and circulation of knowledge by area, especially the dynamics of Social Sciences and Humanities.
Open Access must be permanently conceptualized and defined accordingly. The three “B” homogenize the conditions of the development of science and the conditions of the South are different from those of the North….”