Author Feedback on Controlled Digital Lending

“Authors Alliance is a nonprofit organization with the mission to advance the interests of authors who want to serve the public good by sharing their creations broadly. We create resources to help authors understand and enjoy their rights and promote policies that make knowledge and culture available and discoverable.

Under the Controlled Digital Lending (“CDL”) digitize-and-lend model, libraries make digital copies of scanned books from their collections available to patrons (the hard copy is not available for lending while the digital copy is checked out, and vice versa). A library can only circulate the number of copies that it owned before digitization. Like physical books, the scanned copies are loaned to one person at a time and are subject to limited check-out periods.

Authors Alliance supports CDL because the CDL model helps authors share their creations with readers, promotes the ongoing progress of knowledge, and advances the public good—objectives that are consistent with the mission of Authors Alliance and the purposes of copyright law.

Now, we are gathering stories from authors about their thoughts on and experiences with CDL in order to strengthen our advocacy work and better represent your interests. This form is for authors who want to share their thoughts about CDL with us….”

Author queries via email text elicited high response and took less reviewer time than data forms – a randomised study within a review – Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:  Objective

To compare two strategies for requesting additional information for systematic reviews (SR) from study authors.

Study design and setting

Randomised study within a SR of hospital volume-outcome relationships in total knee arthroplasty. We sent personalised email requests for additional information to study authors as either email text (‘Email’ group) or attachment with self-developed, personalised data request forms (‘Attachment’ group). The primary outcome was the response rate, the secondary outcomes were the data completeness rate and the reviewer time invested in author contact.

Results

Of 57 study authors, 29 were randomised to the Email group and 28 to the Attachment group. The response rate was 93% for Email and 75% for Attachment (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval [0.9–24.0]). Complete data were provided by 55% (Email) versus 36% (Attachment) of authors (odds ratio 2.2 [0.8–6.4]). The mean reviewer time was shorter in the Email (mean ± standard deviation of 20.2±14.4 minutes/author) than the Attachment group (31.8±14.4 minutes/author) with a mean difference of 11.6 [4.1–19.1] minutes/author.

Conclusion

Personalised email requests elicited high response but only moderate data completeness rates regardless of the method (email text or attachment). Email requests as text took less reviewer time than creating attachments.

MIT Libraries develop innovative open access agreements with PLOS | MIT Libraries News

“The MIT Libraries has negotiated two new open-access publishing agreements with the nonprofit publisher Public Library of Science (PLOS) that allow all MIT authors to publish in all PLOS titles with no publishing fees. The agreement aligns with the core principles of the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts.

The aim of the PLOS agreements is to remove the burden of cost of publishing articles from authors and allow MIT to support authors who publish open access. Instead of authors paying article processing charges (or APCs, payments charged to authors or their institutions to make a work available open access), PLOS charges the Institute transparent and equitable fees as guided by the Plan S Price and Service Transparency Framework.

“PLOS recognizes that APCs create barriers for some researchers to publish open access and contribute to inequity in scholarly communications,” said Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries. “This agreement was a true collaboration made possible by our shared goals of openness, equity, and transparency.”

Acknowledging that most research is a collaborative effort, these agreements break new ground by making all MIT authors, corresponding and contributing, eligible. Further aligning with MIT’s values, all authors from Research4Life countries are included in the Collective Action Publishing agreement; Research4Lifeprovides low-and middle-income countries with online access to academic and professional peer-reviewed content….”

MIT Libraries develop innovative open access agreements with PLOS | MIT Libraries News

“The MIT Libraries has negotiated two new open-access publishing agreements with the nonprofit publisher Public Library of Science (PLOS) that allow all MIT authors to publish in all PLOS titles with no publishing fees. The agreement aligns with the core principles of the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts.

The aim of the PLOS agreements is to remove the burden of cost of publishing articles from authors and allow MIT to support authors who publish open access. Instead of authors paying article processing charges (or APCs, payments charged to authors or their institutions to make a work available open access), PLOS charges the Institute transparent and equitable fees as guided by the Plan S Price and Service Transparency Framework.

“PLOS recognizes that APCs create barriers for some researchers to publish open access and contribute to inequity in scholarly communications,” said Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries. “This agreement was a true collaboration made possible by our shared goals of openness, equity, and transparency.”

Acknowledging that most research is a collaborative effort, these agreements break new ground by making all MIT authors, corresponding and contributing, eligible. Further aligning with MIT’s values, all authors from Research4Life countries are included in the Collective Action Publishing agreement; Research4Lifeprovides low-and middle-income countries with online access to academic and professional peer-reviewed content….”

Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing? | Pharmacy Practice

Abstract:  Scholarly publishing is in a crisis, with the many stakeholders complaining about different aspects of the system. Authors want fast publication times, high visibility and publications in high-impact journals. Readers want freely accessible, high-quality articles. Peer reviewers want recognition for the work they perform to ensure the quality of the published articles. However, authors, peer reviewers, and readers are three different roles played by the same group of individuals, the users of the scholarly publishing system—and this system could work based on a collaborative publishing principle where “nobody pays, and nobody gets paid”.

 

Call 2020 Librarian Community Call – OpenCon

“This talk will focus on discussing the Scholarly Profiles as Service (SPaS) model developed and implemented at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. The SPaS model aims to provide representation for IUPUI-affiliated faculty and their scholarly research in Wikidata. By sharing these data in the knowledge base, IUPUI University Library is actively contributing to the growth of the bibliographic citation ecosystem in a repository that is free and open.

 

This call brings together all librarians working with, or learning about, all things Open–and gives folks an opportunity to connect with each other to better their work and librarianship. …”

Full article: Open Access and Promotion and Tenure Evaluation Plans at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire

Abstract:  Department and program evaluation plans at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire were examined to see if these documents provide evidence that could be used to justify supporting the publication of peer-reviewed open access articles toward tenure and promotion. In an earlier study, the authors reveal that faculty members at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire are more unaware of open access publishing than their counterparts at larger universities. These findings dovetail with other studies that show that faculty members are reluctant to publish in open access journals because of concerns about the quality of those journals. The existing body of scholarship suggests that tenure-line faculty fear publishing in open access journals because it could adversely impact their chances of promotion and tenure. The authors of this current study sought to determine if department and program evaluation plans could influence negative perceptions faculty have of open access journals. The implications of this study for librarians, scholarly communication professionals, tenure-line faculty, departments, and programs are addressed.

 

Science journals to offer select authors open-access publishing for free | Science | AAAS

AAAS, which publishes the Science family of journals, announced today it will offer its authors a free way to comply with a mandate issued by some funders that publications resulting from research they fund be immediately free to read. Under the new open-access policy, authors may deposit near-final, peer-reviewed versions of papers accepted by paywalled Science titles in publicly accessible online repositories.