Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

“Collaborating Across Campus to Advance Open Access Policy Compliance” by Andrew Johnson, Melissa Cantrell et al.

In 2018, the Data and Scholarly Communication Services Unit (DSCS) at the University of Colorado Boulder began implementing two open access (OA) policy workflows with the aim of increasing content in the institutional repository CU Scholar, expanding awareness of the campus OA policy that was passed in 2015, and decreasing the burden on researchers for participation in the policy. DSCS leveraged collaborative relationships with other library departments and campus units in order to mobilize the data, infrastructure, procedures, and documentation to execute these workflows. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) workflow identifies existing open access publications by CU Boulder faculty and mediates deposit in order to make them available in CU Scholar. The liaison outreach workflow partners with liaison librarians to request from faculty preprints and author’s final manuscripts of publications in which the publisher version may have copyright restrictions. At present, the DOAJ workflow has resulted in 754 articles deposited in CU Scholar, and the liaison outreach workflow has resulted in 91 articles deposited. Each of these workflows pose challenges that have required flexibility, experimentation, and clear communication between stakeholders. This case study, which includes detailed descriptions of both open access policy workflows, initial results, and plans for future implementation, may serve as a guide for other institutions wishing to adopt and/or adapt institutional repository workflows and forge collaborative relationships to further open access initiatives in their local context.

Shareyourpaper.org

“Make sharing in your repository the simplest way to increase your author’s impact.

Sharing should be simple. We make sure that deposit into your repository means only dragging and dropping a paper by automatically doing all the hard work for depositors. It’ll be free, open source, community owned and easily set up in minutes….”

Webinar: Getting up to Speed on Repository Discovery and Deposit Services – COAR

“Having trouble keeping track of the increasing number of discovery services? Want to learn more about how they work, who are their main users, and how to ensure your repository content is visible in these services?

You are invited to participate in a webinar that will feature two of these discovery services: Unpaywall  and Open Knowledge Maps, as well as a new service called Share Your Paper, which helps researchers easily deposit their content into repositories. Presenters will give participants an overview of their services and also provide an opportunity for attendees to engage with questions and comments.

Join us for this 1.5 hour long webinar on 25th November, Monday at 8:00 PST, 11:00 EST, 16:00 GMT, 17:00 CET….”

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.”

SAGE Publishing supplies full-text articles to Publications Router | Jisc scholarly communications

“SAGE Publishing, one of the world’s leading independent academic and professional publishers, is now supplying full-text content to Jisc’s Publications Router service. The research articles, which span a wide range of subject areas, are then distributed to institutions and automatically ingested into their open repositories, enabling them to capture and disseminate the outputs of their researchers….”

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 Data Management Needs of Bioengineering and Biomedical Faculty” by Christie A. Wiley and Margaret H. Burnette

Abstract:  Objectives: This study explores data management knowledge, attitudes, and practices of bioengineering and biomedical researchers in the context of the National Institutes of Health-funded research projects. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

What is the nature of biomedical and bioengineering research on the Illinois campus and what kinds of data are being generated?
To what degree are biomedical and bioengineering researchers aware of best practices for data management and what are the actual data management behaviors?
What aspects of data management present the greatest challenges and frustrations?
To what degree are biomedical and bioengineering researchers aware of data sharing opportunities and data repositories, and what are their attitudes towards data sharing?
To what degree are researchers aware of campus services and support for data management planning, data sharing, and data deposit, and what is the level of interest in instruction in these areas?

 

Methods: Librarians on the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign campus conducted semi-structured interviews with bioengineering and biomedical researchers to explore researchers’ knowledge of data management best practices, awareness of library campus services, data management behavior and challenges managing research data. The topics covered during the interviews were current research projects, data types, format, description, campus repository usage, data-sharing, awareness of library campus services, data reuse, the anticipated impact of health on public and challenges (interview questions are provided in the Appendix).

Results: This study revealed the majority of researchers explore broad research topics, various file storage solutions, generate numerous amounts of data and adhere to differing discipline-specific practices. Researchers expressed both familiarity and unfamiliarity with DMP Tool. Roughly half of the researchers interviewed reported having documented protocols for file names, file backup, and file storage. Findings also suggest that there is ambiguity about what it means to share research data and confusion about terminology such as “repository” and “data deposit”. Many researchers equate publication to data sharing.

Conclusions: The interviews reveal significant data literacy gaps that present opportunities for library instruction in the areas of file organization, project workflow and documentation, metadata standards, and data deposit options. The interviews also provide invaluable insight into biomedical and bioengineering research in general and contribute to the authors’ understanding of the challenges facing the researchers we strive to support.

“Assessing Data Management Needs of Bioengineering and Biomedical Faculty” by Christie A. Wiley and Margaret H. Burnette

Abstract:  Objectives: This study explores data management knowledge, attitudes, and practices of bioengineering and biomedical researchers in the context of the National Institutes of Health-funded research projects. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

What is the nature of biomedical and bioengineering research on the Illinois campus and what kinds of data are being generated?
To what degree are biomedical and bioengineering researchers aware of best practices for data management and what are the actual data management behaviors?
What aspects of data management present the greatest challenges and frustrations?
To what degree are biomedical and bioengineering researchers aware of data sharing opportunities and data repositories, and what are their attitudes towards data sharing?
To what degree are researchers aware of campus services and support for data management planning, data sharing, and data deposit, and what is the level of interest in instruction in these areas?

 

Methods: Librarians on the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign campus conducted semi-structured interviews with bioengineering and biomedical researchers to explore researchers’ knowledge of data management best practices, awareness of library campus services, data management behavior and challenges managing research data. The topics covered during the interviews were current research projects, data types, format, description, campus repository usage, data-sharing, awareness of library campus services, data reuse, the anticipated impact of health on public and challenges (interview questions are provided in the Appendix).

Results: This study revealed the majority of researchers explore broad research topics, various file storage solutions, generate numerous amounts of data and adhere to differing discipline-specific practices. Researchers expressed both familiarity and unfamiliarity with DMP Tool. Roughly half of the researchers interviewed reported having documented protocols for file names, file backup, and file storage. Findings also suggest that there is ambiguity about what it means to share research data and confusion about terminology such as “repository” and “data deposit”. Many researchers equate publication to data sharing.

Conclusions: The interviews reveal significant data literacy gaps that present opportunities for library instruction in the areas of file organization, project workflow and documentation, metadata standards, and data deposit options. The interviews also provide invaluable insight into biomedical and bioengineering research in general and contribute to the authors’ understanding of the challenges facing the researchers we strive to support.