Open Access & the Library of the 21st Century: A Discussion of the Open Access Initiatives and Practices at Carnegie Mellon University – LibCal – Carnegie Mellon University

“As publishers and funders have used various methods or requirements to stimulate the adoption of open access, academic libraries have sought to alter their role in further supporting their authors and researchers. Evolving from supporting the mechanisms to OA with institutional repositories or Article Processing Charge (APC) Funds, universities like Carnegie Mellon have taken the responsibility to take direct action upon themselves through replacing the ‘Big Deal’ agreement with models focused on “read and publish” that see scholarly publishing as a single service covering both readership and publishing. As one of the world’s leading universities, the University Libraries at Carnegie Mellon shifted in 2020 towards licensing agreements that would allow CMU authors publishing with Elsevier, ACM, and PLoS, to focus on publishing their works open access by default.

Our university bears the name of business titan and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, whose personal donations defined the library of the 20th century. Carnegie was driven by his desire to make knowledge and education accessible to the working class, so they would have the tools to better their own condition.

This Open Access Week 2020 event will present a brief history of open access at CMU, followed by a lively discussion with faculty and graduate student authors supported by the recent agreements, the CMU APC Fund, and other open access initiatives and services at CMU. Panelists will discuss their individual and disciplinary insights and perspectives. The event will conclude with Dean Keith Webster presenting a brief perspective on the future of advocacy and leadership in open access at CMU, as we seek to build upon our founder’s legacy and define the library of the 21st century.”

Exploratory analysis of indicators for open knowledge institutions: a case study of Australian universities | hc:32623 | Humanities CORE

Abstract:  While the movement for open access (OA) has gained momentum in recent years, there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination. Increasingly, universities are under pressure to transform themselves to engage with the wider community and to be more inclusive. Open knowledge institutions (OKIs) provide a framework that encourages universities to act with the principles of openness at their centre; not only should universities embrace digital OA, but also lead actions in cultivating diversity, equity, transparency and positive changes in society. Accordingly, this leads onto questions of whether we can evaluate the progress of OKIs and what are potential indicators for OKIs. As an exploratory study, this article reports on the collection and analysis of a list of potential indicators for OKIs. Data for these indicators are gathered for 43 Australian universities. The results show evidence of large disparities in characteristics such as Indigenous employment and gender equity, and a preference for repository-mediated OA across the Australian universities. These OKI indicators provide high-dimensional and complex signals that can be widely categorised into three groups of diversity, communication and coordination.

Open access and author rights: questioning Harvard’s open access policy

Harvard’s open access (OA) policy, which has become a template for many institutional OA policies, intrinsically undermines the rights of scholars, researchers, authors and university staff, and it adulterates a principal tenet of open access, namely, that authors should control the intellectual property rights to their material. Assessing the implications of Harvard’s open access policy in the light of Peter Suber’s landmark book, Open Access, as well as resources from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Title 17 of the United States Code (USC), this article uncovers an intellectual ‘landgrab’ by universities that may at times not work in the interest of the author or creator of research and weakens the appeal of open access.

RDM-Services – Events – GÉANT federated confluence

“This collaborative workshop will explore different service delivery models that research institutions can adopt when supporting data management. These could apply to research information management systems (CRIS), data repositories, e-Lab notebooks and many other platforms.

Delivery models typically include open source software that is supported in-house, outsourced hosting of OSS, vendor-supported commercial services, and bespoke institutional services. Various partnership models supported by institutional groups, national consortia and NRENs will also be explored.

The workshop will run adjacent to the 16th Research Data Alliance plenary in Costa Rica. In order to support international participation, all sessions will take place daily at 20:00-22:00 UTC – Check your timezone here.  Attendees can sign up for individual sessions.

Monday 2nd November: Opening panel and workshop introduction
Tuesday 3rd November: Procurement pain points
Wednesday 4th November: Open Source business models
Thursday 5th November: Partnerships
Friday 6th November: Closing discussion …”

Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI)

“COKI seeks to be the world’s leading hub for analysis and evaluation of open knowledge in higher education.

Founded at Curtin University in Perth, Australia in 2017, the COKI project team collaborate with national and international partners to create fresh insights into Open Knowledge practice around the world.

COKI has developed the world’s leading open knowledge data set, drawing together more than 12 trillion data elements, providing a comprehensive understanding of open knowledge practices and impact.

The COKI project team is has developed insights, analysis and tools which can enable universities to become Open Knowledge Institutions….”

Project Aims to Move Higher Education Incentives Towards Open – SPARC

“Imagine a world where higher educational institutions were ranked, not by their selectivity or prestige, but by their willingness to openly share knowledge and engage with their communities.

Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) is using big data and cloud computing to measure how colleges and universities operate as open and equitable players in the scholarly ecosystem. Launched in 2017, the idea for the project grew from a frustration that Lucy Montgomery and Cameron Neylon say they faced trying to elevate conversations about investing in open access and open science. 

Too often, leaders on campuses didn’t see open as a priority. The pair wanted to provide data to make their case and provide an incentive for higher education to become more coordinated in its efforts to share knowledge and to change how the information eco-system works….

The project set out to develop a model for an “open knowledge institution.” More than simply focusing on producing open scholarship, COKI looks to measure how institutions bring different groups productively together to make progress and reach consensus, says Neylon. The measures places value on openly communicating research and commitments to building cross-cultural connections. By tracking these efforts, COKI aims to support university efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education and research….”

Journal- or article-based citation measure? A study… | F1000Research

Abstract:  In academia, decisions on promotions are influenced by the citation impact of the works published by the candidates. The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern used a measure based on the journal impact factor (JIF) for this purpose: the JIF of the papers submitted for promotion should rank in the upper third of journals in the relevant discipline (JIF rank >0.66). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) aims to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics in academic promotion. We examined whether the JIF rank could be replaced with the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level measure of citation impact developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An RCR percentile >0.66 corresponds to the upper third of citation impact of articles from NIH-sponsored research. We examined 1525 publications submitted by 64 candidates for academic promotion at University of Bern. There was only a moderate correlation between the JIF rank and RCR percentile (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.38). Among the 1,199 articles (78.6%) published in journals ranking >0.66 for the JIF, less than half (509, 42.5%) were in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Conversely, among the 326 articles published in journals ranking <0.66 regarding the JIF, 72 (22.1%) ranked in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Our study demonstrates that the rank of the JIF is a bad proxy measure for the actual citation impact of individual articles. The Medical Faculty of University of Bern has signed DORA and replaced the JIF rank with the RCR percentile to assess the citation impact of papers submitted for academic promotion.  

Online Survey Software | Qualtrics Survey Solutions

“You are invited to participate in a study that will analyze your institution’s research data management services. In addition, this study is being conducted to fulfill the requirements of a capstone project. The study is conducted by Nicolas Pares. Results will be used to evaluate a framework for assessing gaps in research data management services and to potentially be shared in a related research data management journal….”

From Idea to Policy: How Do United States R-1 Universities Advance Open Access Scholarly Communication at an Institutional Level? – ProQuest

“U.S. universities are increasingly unable to afford research journal subscriptions due to the rising prices charged by for-profit academic publishers. Open Access appears to be the most backed option to disrupt the current publishing model. However, only about seventy-six U.S. universities/colleges have developed and implemented institutional Open Access policies at this time. The purpose of this study is to understand how selected United States R-1 universities advance Open Access at the institutional level, by investigating how these institutions develop, implement, support, and measure their Open Access Policy efforts. An in-depth qualitative study, including interviews with stakeholders and examination of artifacts, was performed on two R-1universities with Open Access policies that have been implemented for at least five years. The results of this study reveal that an institutional Open Access policy could begin at the university senior administration level or at the faculty level. Dissemination of knowledge and reducing costs were two of the primary motivators for the development of the policies, but only the former reason was explicitly stated and promoted. A lack of definitions for the progress and success of the policies’ implementation has hindered their impact. In summary, there was a tacit acknowledgement that the policies were symbolic and goodwill gestures rather than enforceable mandates.”