Abstract: This article provides an overview of open access publishing and its emergence in the arts. Open access scholarship, which is online, free for users to access, and free of most licensing restrictions, has enjoyed numerous successes in the sciences and is gaining widespread attention in the humanities and social sciences. Its presence in the arts, however, has been marginal. The author examines the various reasons for the problematic reception of open access publishing in image-rich disciplines like art history, highlights notable open access projects, and explores their potential impact on art librarianship.
Abstract: This study reviews content from five different library and information science journals: Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, Collection Management, College & Undergraduate Libraries, Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship and Journal of Library Administration over a five-year period from 2012–2016 to investigate the green deposit rate. Starting in 2011, Taylor & Francis, the publisher of these journals, waived the green deposit embargo for library and information science, heritage and archival content, which allows for immediate deposit of articles in these fields. The review looks at research articles and standing columns over the five years from these five journals to see if any articles were retrieved using the OA Button or through institutional repositories. Results indicate that less than a quarter of writers have chosen to make a green deposit of their articles in local or subject repositories. The discussion outlines some best practices to be undertaken by librarians, editors and Taylor & Francis to make this program more successful.
“Harvard University’s Administrative Fellowship Program is one of the cornerstones of our diversity and inclusion efforts. We seek to attract talented professionals, and in particular members of historically underrepresented groups, to promote leadership opportunities and careers in higher education. The University encourages applications from individuals from diverse backgrounds and others who may contribute to the diversity of Harvard’s leadership. To this end, the Administrative Fellowship Program offers a twelve-month talent management experience complemented by a professional development program. Please visit the program’s website [https://hr.harvard.edu/administrative-fellows-program] for more details.
Houghton Library is pleased to offer a two-year Harvard Library Diversity Fellowship to immerse a rising leader in the library and archives profession in a wide variety of activities related to the management of a world class repository of rare books, manuscripts, archives, and other rare and unique library materials. Over the course of the two years, the Fellow will be exposed to and make contributions to the major functions of the library including scholarly communication, public programs, researcher services, and other areas as opportunities present themselves. The Fellow will also have the opportunity to meet and work with curators, librarians and archivists in other libraries that comprise the Arts and Special Collections of the Harvard College.
A signature project will be core to the Fellow’s experience. The incumbent will primarily work with the editorial team for the Harvard Library Bulletin (HLB), a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by Houghton Library on behalf of Harvard Library. This position will allow the Fellow to develop expertise in scholarly communication, an area of rising emphasis in librarianship which is predicted to grow as an increasing number of university libraries assume responsibility for scholarly publishing and university presses.”
Among the duties: “Join the editorial team of the Harvard Library Bulletin. Collaborates with colleagues to relaunch the HLB as an online, open access journal….”
“The ACRL Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC) is seeking community input on proposed revisions to the ACRL Policy Statement on Open Access to Scholarship by Academic Librarians, approved by the ACRL Board of Directors during the 2016 ALA Annual Conference….
Please review the draft revision (PDF) on the ACRL website and send your feedback by July 1, 2018 to Steven Harris (email@example.com)….”
“Three years ago, I felt called to the unhappy task of pointing out the many points of failure in what Lettie Conrad calls the “researcher experience.” I observed that “Instead of the rich and seamless digital library for scholarship that they need, researchers today encounter archipelagos of content bridged by infrastructure that is insufficient and often outdated.” Perhaps researchers need a supercontinent.
Since then, Sci-Hub has come on the scene, and publishers are in some combination of being outraged and/or scared. It may be that these businesses are too late. The formula for stabilizing a sector facing rampant piracy is the combination of legal action and seamless central access to content that allowed the music industry to find a future after Napster. Thus far, for scholarly publishers, legal action is not working, with cross-border enforcement challenging in this geopolitical moment. But what about the seamless centralized access to content? How is this sector going to accept the tectonic shift necessary to establish the supercontinent?…”
“[Q] How will open science influence LIS education?
“Wide dissemination of the results of IMLS-funded projects advances the body of knowledge and professional practice in museum, library, and information services. For this reason, IMLS encourages creators of works resulting from IMLS funding to share their work whenever possible through forums such as institutional or disciplinary repositories, open-access journals, or other media. All work products resulting from IMLS funding should be distributed for free or at cost unless IMLS has given you written approval for another arrangement. IMLS expects you to ensure that final peer-reviewed manuscripts resulting from research conducted under an award are made available in a manner that permits the public to access, read, download, and analyze the work without charge…. If you collect and analyze data as part of an IMLS funded project, IMLS expects you to deposit data resulting from IMLS-funded research in a broadly accessible repository that allows the public to use the data without charge no later than the date upon which you submit your final 13 report to IMLS. You should deposit the data in a machine-readable, non-proprietary digital format to maximize search, retrieval, and analysis….”
“I’m also finding it challenging to find open access journals that fit my interdisciplinary leanings. At this point I’m tenured and not aiming for another promotion, and I’m even more committed to publishing only in open access journals. Open access coverage is highly variable between fields, still. I’ve become so spoiled by the wide range of OA journals in LIS that I’m somewhat shocked when looking for journals in other disciplines. There are lots of fantastic OA options in LIS, but that’s not always the case in other disciplines.
In recent years I’ve begun to wonder whether the journal itself isn’t somewhat of a dinosaur, at least for interdisciplinary work. I use Twitter plus uploading to my university’s institutional repository as my primary means of self-promotion, hoping that the range of scholars who I follow and am followed by will help my work get to anyone who might be interested in it, both inside and outside LIS. In my own research process I rarely read entire issues of scholarly journals anymore, or even table of contents updates, with a few exceptions (that include those journals I regularly peer review for). A journal can be and represent a disciplinary community, but must it always be? There are multiple means of discovery — our usual library databases, social media, the various search engines — for scholarly articles. Is the journal as container for research still the best model, especially if it can’t easily accommodate research that doesn’t fit neatly into disciplinary categories? …”
Authors: Muller, Floriane Sophie; Iriarte, Pablo. Presented at: 15th Interlending and Document Supply Conference (ILDS). Paris – 04-06 October – . 2017
Abstract: “The University of Geneva library has seen, like others around the world, a slight but steady decrease in its document delivery service usage for a few years now and this decline also seems to affect the use of the electronic licensed collection. Indeed, 2016 was the first year where usage of licensed journals decreased. How could it be correlated with other actual trends, such as an ever growing open access corpus and an increased visibility of shadow libraries like Sci-Hub? To what resources and services, beside the offer of the library, can our scholars turn when they need an article? In this work we try to reveal and understand the mechanisms that operate behind this gradual disengagement of scholars in our library services. Working a reverse way, we checked in WoS all the papers published in 2015 and 2016 by authors affiliated in Geneva University STM faculties (3’833 and 3’989 articles respectively). Then we extracted all the references cited in those papers (364’445 references, 80% having DOIs) and enriched them with more identifiers, bibliographic data and access information, using bibliographic APIs from CrossRef, NLM, DOAJ and oaDOI for the Open Access corpus, and open data sets from Dryad, figshare and Zenodo for Sci-Hub data. Finally we confronted this cited information to our ILL/DD orders and licensed journals database. This deep comparison gives us a much more informed insight into our scholars’ practices and allows us to measure the impact of piracy and Open Access growth on the academic library services.”