Survey of Academic Library Leadership: Level of Support for Open Access Initiatives

“This 61-page report [$114 for one PDF copy] looks closely at academic library activity to support open access.  The study gives highly precise data on librarian perceptions of faculty support for open access, and for library activities in peer review, open access publishing and other ventures and activity to support open access, including the payment of author fees and development of institutional digital repositories.  The study helps its readers to answer questions such as:  What percentage of libraries are active in helping to develop peer review networks?  How much do libraries spend on author fees?  How many themselves publish open access journals? What percentage of faculty routinely deposit their scholarly articles in the institutional digital repository? How effective have librarians been in promoting the repository to faculty? How do librarians evaluate the current effectiveness of future probably impact of open access?  How do librarians view the level of support that they are getting from university management on open access issues? How many staff positions are largely devoted to various specified open access activities?

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

Public colleges were significantly more likely than private ones to report support from university or college administration for open access initiatives.
25% of respondents from research universities reported more than just modest progress over the past two years in convincing faculty to deposit their research articles into institutional digital repositories.
13.64% of the MA/PHD level colleges and universities in the sample published their own open access journals.
Nearly 24% of respondents from institutions with enrolment of greater than 10,000 FTE were active in developing peer review networks for open access publications.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables. 

Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.”

Wikimedia in Universities

“You are being invited to participate in a survey titled ‘Wikimedia in Universities’. This survey is being done by Nick Sheppard from the University of Leeds.

We are also interested in how other organisations are using Wikimedia e.g. Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) The purpose of this survey is to gain insight into the use of the Wikimedia suite of tools in universities and GLAM organisations and will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete. You may choose not to participate. If you decide to participate you may withdraw at any time. If you decide not to participate or if you withdraw, you will not be penalised….”

bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology | bioRxiv

Abstract:  The traditional publication process delays dissemination of new research, often by months, sometimes by years. Preprint servers decouple dissemination of research papers from their evaluation and certification by journals, allowing researchers to share work immediately, receive feedback from a much larger audience, and provide evidence of productivity long before formal publication. Launched in 2013 as a non-profit community service, the bioRxiv server has brought preprint practice to the life sciences and recently posted its 64,000th manuscript. The server now receives more than four million views per month and hosts papers spanning all areas of biology. Initially dominated by evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics and computational biology, bioRxiv has been increasingly populated by papers in neuroscience, cell and developmental biology, and many other fields. Changes in journal and funder policies that encourage preprint posting have helped drive adoption, as has the development of bioRxiv technologies that allow authors to transfer papers easily between the server and journals. A bioRxiv user survey found that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. Authors are motivated by a desire to share work early; they value the feedback they receive, and very rarely experience any negative consequences of preprint posting. Rapid dissemination via bioRxiv is also encouraging new initiatives that experiment with the peer review process and the development of novel approaches to literature filtering and assessment.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed

Abstract:  Objective Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups. Design Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014–2015. Results Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated ‘other’ or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination. Conclusion Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

Uncovering the global picture of Open GLAM – Open GLAM – Medium

“How many cultural heritage institutions make their digital collections available for free reuse? How do they do this, and where is open access most prevalent? Twelve months ago, Andrea Wallace and I set out to find some answers.

In the first post in a short series, I recount the origins and motivations of the Open GLAM survey….”

“Establishing an RDM Service on a Health Sciences Campus” by Kathryn Vela and Nancy Shin

Abstract:  Objective: Given the increasing need for research data management support and education, the Spokane Academic Library at Washington State University (WSU) sought to determine the data management practices, perceptions, and needs of researchers on the WSU Spokane health sciences campus.

Methods: A 23-question online survey was distributed to WSU researchers and research support staff through the campus listserv. This online survey addressed data organization, documentation, storage & backup, security, preservation, and sharing, as well as challenges and desired support services.

Results: Survey results indicated that there was a clear need for more instruction with regard to data management planning, particularly as data management planning addresses the areas of metadata design, data sharing, data security, and data storage and backup.

Conclusions: This needs assessment will direct how RDM services are implemented on the WSU Spokane campus by the Spokane Academic Library (SAL). These services will influence both research data quality and integrity through improved data management practices.

“Establishing an RDM Service on a Health Sciences Campus” by Kathryn Vela and Nancy Shin

Abstract:  Objective: Given the increasing need for research data management support and education, the Spokane Academic Library at Washington State University (WSU) sought to determine the data management practices, perceptions, and needs of researchers on the WSU Spokane health sciences campus.

Methods: A 23-question online survey was distributed to WSU researchers and research support staff through the campus listserv. This online survey addressed data organization, documentation, storage & backup, security, preservation, and sharing, as well as challenges and desired support services.

Results: Survey results indicated that there was a clear need for more instruction with regard to data management planning, particularly as data management planning addresses the areas of metadata design, data sharing, data security, and data storage and backup.

Conclusions: This needs assessment will direct how RDM services are implemented on the WSU Spokane campus by the Spokane Academic Library (SAL). These services will influence both research data quality and integrity through improved data management practices.

OA potential remains untapped – report | Research Information

“Researchers want to improve access to research but remain largely unaware of initiatives and services established to increase open access (OA).

A survey of 2,755 Taylor & Francis authors, released for Open Access Week, reveals little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of published research – and that researchers should be taking advantage more of the open access options available to them.

Some 66 per cent of researchers didn’t recognise any of 11 different initiatives presented to them, including the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (with the highest level of researchers, 12 per cent, aware of this) and the Open Access Button (with the lowest level of awareness, at just 2 per cent).

Just 5 per cent of researchers are aware of Plan S – an initiative with potential to significantly affect publishing options for researchers around the world. Plan S been a headline story within the scholarly communications industry and been the focus of many political discussions around its aim of making all scholarly publications open access by 2025….”

OA potential remains untapped – report | Research Information

“Researchers want to improve access to research but remain largely unaware of initiatives and services established to increase open access (OA).

A survey of 2,755 Taylor & Francis authors, released for Open Access Week, reveals little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of published research – and that researchers should be taking advantage more of the open access options available to them.

Some 66 per cent of researchers didn’t recognise any of 11 different initiatives presented to them, including the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (with the highest level of researchers, 12 per cent, aware of this) and the Open Access Button (with the lowest level of awareness, at just 2 per cent).

Just 5 per cent of researchers are aware of Plan S – an initiative with potential to significantly affect publishing options for researchers around the world. Plan S been a headline story within the scholarly communications industry and been the focus of many political discussions around its aim of making all scholarly publications open access by 2025….”