# MIT framework for negotiating with scholarly publishers gains wide support

“Who should own and control the dissemination of research? Not academic publishers, according to a new framework developed by library leaders at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The framework, published this week, asserts that control of scholarship and the way in which it is distributed should reside with scholars and their institutions. The document contains six core principles that will be used by MIT as a starting point for future contract negotiations with academic publishers.

The principles aim to ensure that research is available openly and appropriately archived. They also call for fair and transparent pricing of publisher services and say that no author should be forced to give up a copyright in order to publish their work. Instead, authors should be provided with “generous reuse rights,” the framework says….”

# “Assessing usability of GTD supplementary files” by Steven Van Tuyl

Abstract:  Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality and usability of supplementary data files deposited, between 1971 and 2015, to our university institutional repository. Understanding the extent to which content historically deposited in digital repositories is usable by today’s researchers can help inform digital preservation and documentation practices for researchers today.

Methods: I identified all graduate level theses and dissertations (GTDs) in the institutional repository with multiple files as a first pass at identifying documents that included supplementary data files. These GTDs were then individually examined, removing supplementary files that were artifacts of either the upload or digitization process. The remaining “true” supplementary files were then individually opened and evaluated following elements of the DATA rubric of Van Tuyl and Whitmire (2016).

Results: Supplementary files were discovered in the repository dating back to 1971 in 116 GTD submissions totalling more than 25,000 files. Most GTD submissions included fewer than 30 files, though some submissions included thousands of individual data files. The most common file types submitted include imagery, tabular data, and databases, with a very large number of unknown file types. Overall, levels of documentation were poor while actionability of datasets was generally middling.

Conclusions: The results presented in this study suggest that legacy data submitted to our institutional repository with GTDs is generally in poor shape with respect to Transparency and somewhat less so for Actionability. It is clear from this study and others that researchers have a long road ahead when it comes to sharing data in a way that makes it potentially useable by other researchers.

# “Assessing usability of GTD supplementary files” by Steven Van Tuyl

Abstract:  Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality and usability of supplementary data files deposited, between 1971 and 2015, to our university institutional repository. Understanding the extent to which content historically deposited in digital repositories is usable by today’s researchers can help inform digital preservation and documentation practices for researchers today.

Methods: I identified all graduate level theses and dissertations (GTDs) in the institutional repository with multiple files as a first pass at identifying documents that included supplementary data files. These GTDs were then individually examined, removing supplementary files that were artifacts of either the upload or digitization process. The remaining “true” supplementary files were then individually opened and evaluated following elements of the DATA rubric of Van Tuyl and Whitmire (2016).

Results: Supplementary files were discovered in the repository dating back to 1971 in 116 GTD submissions totalling more than 25,000 files. Most GTD submissions included fewer than 30 files, though some submissions included thousands of individual data files. The most common file types submitted include imagery, tabular data, and databases, with a very large number of unknown file types. Overall, levels of documentation were poor while actionability of datasets was generally middling.

Conclusions: The results presented in this study suggest that legacy data submitted to our institutional repository with GTDs is generally in poor shape with respect to Transparency and somewhat less so for Actionability. It is clear from this study and others that researchers have a long road ahead when it comes to sharing data in a way that makes it potentially useable by other researchers.

# Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers. RESULTS Faculty were much more likely to have deposited their work in an ASN than in the IR. However, the number of researchers who deposited in both the IR and at least one ASN exceeded that of those who deposited their research solely in an ASN. Unexpected findings occurred as well, such as numerous false or unverified accounts claiming affiliation with the institution. ResearchGate was found to be the favored ASN at this particular institution. DISCUSSION The results of this study confirm earlier studies’ findings indicating that those researchers who are willing to make their research open access are more disposed to do so over multiple channels, showing that those who already self-archive elsewhere are prime targets for inclusion in the IR. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing ASNs as a threat to IRs, they may be seen as a potential site of identifying likely contributors to the IR.

# Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers. RESULTS Faculty were much more likely to have deposited their work in an ASN than in the IR. However, the number of researchers who deposited in both the IR and at least one ASN exceeded that of those who deposited their research solely in an ASN. Unexpected findings occurred as well, such as numerous false or unverified accounts claiming affiliation with the institution. ResearchGate was found to be the favored ASN at this particular institution. DISCUSSION The results of this study confirm earlier studies’ findings indicating that those researchers who are willing to make their research open access are more disposed to do so over multiple channels, showing that those who already self-archive elsewhere are prime targets for inclusion in the IR. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing ASNs as a threat to IRs, they may be seen as a potential site of identifying likely contributors to the IR.

# MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts | Scholarly Publishing – MIT Libraries

“The core principles of an MIT Framework for publisher contracts are:

No author will be required to waive any institutional or funder open access policy to publish in any of the publisher’s journals.
No author will be required to relinquish copyright, but instead will be provided with options that enable publication while also providing authors with generous reuse rights.
Publishers will directly deposit scholarly articles in institutional repositories immediately upon publication or will provide tools/mechanisms that facilitate immediate deposit.
Publishers will provide computational access to subscribed content as a standard part of all contracts, with no restrictions on non-consumptive, computational analysis of the corpus of subscribed content.
Publishers will ensure the long-term digital preservation and accessibility of their content through participation in trusted digital archives.
Institutions will pay a fair and sustainable price to publishers for value-added services, based on transparent and cost-based pricing models….”

# MIT announces framework to guide negotiations with publishers | MIT News

“The MIT Libraries, together with the MIT Committee on the Library System and the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, announced that it has developed a principle-based framework to guide negotiations with scholarly publishers. The framework emerges directly from the core principles for open science and open scholarship articulated in the recommendations of the Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, which released its final report to the MIT community on Oct. 18.

The framework affirms the overarching principle that control of scholarship and its dissemination should reside with scholars and their institutions. It aims to ensure that scholarly research outputs are openly and equitably available to the broadest possible audience, while also providing valued services to the MIT community….”

# Hyku Open Source Institutional Repository Development partnership awarded $1M Arcadia grant to improve open scholarship infrastructure | UVA Library News and Announcements “The University of Virginia is pleased to announce a two-year award in the amount of$1,000,000 from Arcadia—a charitable fund of philanthropists Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin—in support of the “Advancing Hyku: Open Source Institutional Repository Platform Development” project.

Through this project, the University of Virginia and its partner institutions—Ubiquity Press and the British Library—will support the growth of open access through institutional repositories. Working with the global open infrastructure community, the partners will introduce significant structural improvements and new features to the Samvera Community’s Hyku Institutional Repository platform….”

# DigitalHub: A Repository Focused on the Future: Medical Reference Services Quarterly: Vol 37, No 1

Abstract:  The DigitalHub scholarly repository was developed and launched at the Galter Health Sciences Library for the Feinberg School of Medicine and the greater Northwestern Medicine community. The repository was designed to allow scholars the ability to create, share, and preserve a range of citable digital outputs. This article traces the evolution of DigitalHub’s development and engagement activities, highlighting project challenges, innovations, success stories, and the team-based approach that was employed to successfully achieve project goals.

# DigitalHub: A Repository Focused on the Future: Medical Reference Services Quarterly: Vol 37, No 1

Abstract:  The DigitalHub scholarly repository was developed and launched at the Galter Health Sciences Library for the Feinberg School of Medicine and the greater Northwestern Medicine community. The repository was designed to allow scholars the ability to create, share, and preserve a range of citable digital outputs. This article traces the evolution of DigitalHub’s development and engagement activities, highlighting project challenges, innovations, success stories, and the team-based approach that was employed to successfully achieve project goals.