“The Research Data Management Librarian Academy (RDMLA) is a free online professional development program for librarians, information professionals, or other professionals who work in a research-intensive environment throughout the world.
RDMLA features a unique partnership between a LIS academic program, academic health sciences and research libraries, and Elsevier. Partner institutions include:
Harvard Medical School
Massachusettes College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Abstract: This article presents results from a survey of faculty in North American Library and Information Studies (LIS) schools about their attitudes towards and experience with open-access publishing. As a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 2013, the article also outlines the differences in beliefs about and engagement with open access that have occurred between 2013 and 2018. Although faculty in LIS schools are proponents of free access to research, journal publication choices remain informed by traditional considerations such as prestige and impact factor. Engagement with open access has increased significantly, while perceptions of open access have remained relatively stable between 2013 and 2018. Nonetheless, those faculty who have published in an open-access journal or are more knowledgeable about open access tend to be more convinced about the quality of open-access publications and less apprehensive about open-access publishing than those who have no publishing experience with open-access journals or who are less knowledgeable about various open-access modalities. Willingness to comply with gold open-access mandates has increased significantly since 2013.
Abstract: Open Access (OA) initiatives, movements and policies have had a large impact on scholarly communication publishing and dissemination. This is of particular interest to Library and Information Science, through implementation, ethics and how libraries and librarians engage with the process. Library and Information Science principally concerns itself with the organisation and sharing of information and knowledge, considering the impoteus behind the OA movement in contrast to recent commercial implementation.
Abstract: Standardization both reflects and facilitates the collaborative and networked approach to metadata creation within the fields of librarianship and archival studies. These standards—such as Resource Description and Access and Rules for Archival Description—and the theoretical frameworks they embody enable professionals to work more effectively together. Yet such guidelines also determine who is qualified to undertake the work of cataloging and processing in libraries and archives. Both fields are empathetic to facilitating user-generated metadata and have taken steps towards collaborating with their research communities (as illustrated, for example, by social tagging and folksonomies) but these initial experiments cannot yet be regarded as widely adopted and radically open and social. This paper explores the recent histories of descriptive work in libraries and archives and the challenges involved in departing from deeply established models of metadata creation.
“Other sustainability promoting characteristics of technology or technology practices named in articles included: customizability, openness, sharing, seamless interfaces and services, common database systems, central clearinghouses for technical information, and use of sustainable formats….”
Abstract: “Open access” (“OA”) refers to research placed online free from all price barriers and from most permission barriers (Suber, 2015). OA may apply to research outputs published traditionally, such as books (Schwartz, 2012) and articles in academic journals (Suber, 2015), and non-traditionally, such as student dissertations and theses (Schöpfel & Prost). The lack of legal barriers is grounded in and given effect through the law of copyright and contract, and the submission of content by authors is often executed through a publication agreement. This paper studies the contract aspects of OA and the open publishing movement in library and information science (“LIS”) scholarly communication. To explore this phenomenon, it undertakes a case study of the publication agreements of five OA LIS journals. The sample consists of a brand-new open journal with an agreements drafted by copyright librarians (journal 1) and top-ranked LIS journals that converted to OA (journals 2 through 5) (Scimago, 2017). With a descriptive data analysis based on that in Lipinski and Copeland (2015; 2013) and Lipinski (2013; 2012), the case study investigates the similarities and differences in the agreements used by the sampled OA LIS journals. The study builds on the best practices from the Harvard Open Access Project (Shieber & Suber, 2016; 2013). It recommends best practices for the drafting and content of OA LIS publication agreements.
“Over the last 2 years, representatives of several organisations and institutions with an interest in skills development around scholarly communication have been trying to progress support in this area in a collaborative way (see full list of members below).
Blog posts by Danny Kingsley on the Cambridge Unlocking Research blog (July 2017, Nov 2017) describe initial discussions and early activities around identifying issues to address. These centred around concerns around a lack of training and support for these relatively new roles and a confusion for potential applicants around what these roles actually involve.
This post reviews activities from 2018 and looks ahead to this year. Most of the last year’s activities were related to library staff working in scholarly communications, mainly due to the heavy representation of librarians on our group, but also that this is a major area of development in academic libraries.
Our initial aim is to explore support for librarians and then review this to see to what extent it is appropriate for others involved in scholarly communications, such as research managers, researcher developers and, of course, researchers themselves.
One of first activities was to identify existing current provision in order to identify clearly the gap in what’s needed. We’ve drawn together this list and will keep updating – please add to it if there’s something you know of that’s missing….”
Abstract: Open access journals are playing an increasingly important role in scientific publishing. However, it is hard to find the right way in the huge amount of OA titles available on the net. In this respect DOAJ, a directory based on stringent qualitative selection criteria, represents a fundamental resource for authors, publishers and librarians. This article examines the characteristics of LIS journals listed in DOAJ, highlighting in particular their origin (born- digital or digitized) and the main topics they cover.
“This paper aims to conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in library and information science in order to identify and understand different insights and best practices.”
“A global and multidisciplinary community of stakeholders came together in March 2018 to identify, scope, and prioritize a common vision for specific grand research challenges related to information science and scholarly communications. The participants were both traditional domain researchers and those who are aiming to democratize scholarship. An explicit aim of the summit was to identify research needs related to barriers in the development of scalable, interoperating, socially beneficial, and equitable systems for scholarly information; and to explore the development of non-market approaches to governing the scholarly ecosystem….”