“Mindful of privacy issues, I asked a friend in campus IT to take a list of 6 or 7 domains and derive an extract file from the DNS query logs, providing just date, time and query string for anything that matched the domain information I provided. Here’s an excerpt of the result: …
Producing this extract is now part of a weekly cron job so I’ll be able to monitor the relative use of these sites over the coming months. In this one particular instance, I can’t wait for the Fall term to begin…
So what did I find by monitoring DNS queries between July 3rd and July 10th?
The graph shows activity for users on the campus network. A better name for this post might be, “What does local use of ResearchGate look like?”…
Here are the numbers if you include off-campus traffic to subscription sites (DNS resolution happens here since our proxy server is on the campus network):
Sci-Hub (includes the .tw, .se, and .ren domains): 87
Springer-Link: 551 (391 on-campus users; 160 via campus proxy server)
Google Scholar: 977
ScienceDirect: 1730 (1306 on-campus users; 424 via campus proxy server)
“As of January 1st 2019, authors submitting manuscripts to Communications Biology can choose to publish the reviewer reports and author replies with their articles. The first articles with associated reviewer reports have now been published, representing an important step in our broader journey toward greater openness….
In addition, we ask that the data underlying plots and graphs in the main figures are available either in the supplementary materials or via an online generalist repository….Given the positive outcome of our trial, we are now making source data mandatory for published papers from today….”
Abstract: The impact of published research is sometimes measured by the number of citations an individual article accumulates. However, the time from publication to citation can be extensive. Years may pass before authors are able to measure the impact of their publication. Social media provides individuals and organizations a powerful medium with which to share information. The power of social media is sometimes harnessed to share scholarly works, especially journal article citations and quotes. A non?traditional bibliometric is required to understand the impact social media has on disseminating scholarly works/research. The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing (IJMHN) appointed a social media editor as of 1 January 2017 to implement a strategy to increase the impact and reach of the journal’s articles. To measure the impact of the IJMHN social media strategy, quantitative data for the eighteen months prior to the social media editor start date, and the eighteen months after that date (i.e.: from 01 July 2015 to 30 June 2018) were acquired and analysed. Quantitative evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of one journal’s social media strategy in increasing the reach and readership of the articles it publishes. This information may be of interest to those considering where to publish their research, those wanting to amplify the reach of their research, those who fund research, and journal editors and boards.
“It is widely recognized that HSS and its publishing industry are different (and less profitable). As a publisher in those fields, one could easily be tempted to ask funders for exceptions to policies that push for a faster transition to OA – out of fear that we might become collateral damage in a process that hit us like a storm. One year after Plan S, I think to do so would be a huge mistake.
It is very simple: if we ask for exceptions for HSS, the research we publish will not be able to transition to open with the same speed as STM. As a consequence, HSS research would not be visible as much, would generate less impact and would be even more pushed to the background when budgets are distributed. HSS would be left behind.
We not only need to accelerate OA – increase the speed of transition – but, more importantly, we need to expand the possibilities to transition to OA beyond the APC model. HSS research is highly relevant and deserves to be open. By being more open, HSS can have a greater impact on society and contribute more efficiently to making this world a better place. As HSS publishers, we need to speak up for the communities we serve and help them defend their position in a competitive research landscape. With the right plan for a transition to more openness, HSS will not only survive but thrive in the future and unfold their full potential….”
“In the January 2018, Syracuse University passed an Accessibility policy requiring WCAG 2.0 AA compliance with the American Disabilities Act. The university also received an Office of Civil Rights complaint that required a review of the the University’s most widely used sites, once of which was the institutional repository, SURFACE (surace.syr.edu).
In this presentation, I will share the story of how the Syracuse University Libraries evaluated requirements necessary for WCAG 2.0 AA compliance, and detail changes made to the institutional repository. This will include considerations and conclusions, internal collaborations within the Libraries, workflows, and project management patterns. Findings disclosed will include challenges, successes, and practical workarounds regarding accessibility and the technology infrastructures of Digital Commons that were experienced, especially impacting the discovery, metadata, and interoperability of the IR collections.
As time passed, and the principles of our department and university did, as well as the dynamic with the vendor, bepress/Elsevier. As advocacy is a core element of scholarly communication (SC) work, the discussion will draw to a close with a discussion of how definitions of access to information now takes on a whole new meaning, how this influences Open Access, and why this still matters.”
Abstract: Changes brought about by the Internet to Scholarly Communication and the spread of Open Access movement, have made it possible to increase the number of potential readers of published research dramatically. This two-phase study aims, at first, to assert the satisfaction of the potential for increased open access to articles published by authors at the University of Coimbra, in a context when there was no stimulus for the openness of published science other than an institutional mandate set by the University policy on Open Access (“Acesso Livre”). The satisfaction of the access openness was measured by observing the actual archiving behavior of researchers (either directly or through their agents). We started by selecting the top journal titles used to publish the STEM research of the University of Coimbra (2004-2013) by using Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index (SCI). These titles were available at the University libraries or through online subscriptions, some of them in open access (21%). By checking the journals’ policy at the time regarding self-archiving at the SHERPA/RoMEO service, we found that the percentage of articles in Open Access (OA) could rise to 80% if deposited at Estudo Geral, the Institutional Repository of the University of Coimbra, as prescribed by the Open Access Policy of the University. As we concluded by verifying the deposit status of every single paper of researchers of the University that published in those journals, this potential was far from being fulfilled, despite the existence of the institutional mandate and favorable editorial conditions. We concluded, therefore, that an institutional mandate was not sufficient by itself to fully implement an open access policy and to close the gap between publication and access. The second phase of the study, to follow, will rescan the status of published papers in a context where the Portuguese public funding agency, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, introduced in 2014 a new significant stimulus for open access in science. The FCT Open Access Policy stipulates that publicly funded published research must be available as soon as possible in a repository of the Portuguese network of scientific repositories, RCAAP, which integrates the Estudo Geral.
Abstract: Established in 2005, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL)’s Libraries’ institutional repository (IR) has approximately 99,500 unique items. It is one of the largest and most-used institutional repositories in the United States. This presentation explores how UNL is working to meet the challenge of consistently and accurately identifying individual researchers and their scholarly activities. It examines UNL’s metadata practices for its IR, giving a more detailed explanation of personal names and Open Researcher and Contributor ID identifiers. It reviews some typical metadata problems found in UNL’s IR. Finally, it explores priorities for metadata maintenance and what is sustainable and worthwhile.
Abstract: Repository management relies on knowledge of numerous attributes of academic journals, such as revenue model (subscription, hybrid or fully Open Access), self-archiving policies, licences, contacts for queries and article processing charges (APCs). While datasets collating some of this information are helpful to repository administrators, most cover only one or few of those attributes (e.g., APC price lists from publishers), do not provide APIs or their API responses are not machine readable (self-archiving policies from RoMEO), or are not updated very often (licences and APCs from DOAJ). As a result, most repositories still rely on administrative staff looking up and entering required attributes manually. To solve this problem and increase automation of tasks performed by the Cambridge repository team, I developed Orpheus, a database of academic journals/publishers written in Django. Orpheus was recently integrated with our DSpace repository Apollo and auxiliary systems via its RESTful API, enabling embargo periods to be automatically applied to deposited articles and streamlining the process of advising researchers on payments, licences and compliance to funders’ Open Access policies. Orpheus is Open Source (https://github.com/osc-cam/orpheus) and may be easily expanded or tailored to meet the particular needs of other repositories and Scholarly Communication services.
Abstract: Following from the integration of Cambridge’s Institutional Repository, Apollo, with the University’s CRIS system (Symplectic Elements), Cambridge University Library has developed two web-based systems to further streamline and enhance the workflows for managing Open Access (OA) publication submissions, and to collect key missing publication metadata in ways that improve researchers’ interaction with the relevant systems. The first system, Fasttrack, aims to drastically reduce the time needed to process repository submissions. It provides a user-friendly interface to review and approve submissions in Apollo via the DSpace API. The second web-based application, LastMinute.CAM, is a simple web form to collect missing publications metadata required for calculating open access compliance. Collected publications metadata is automatically pushed into the CRIS’ associated publication records and is then available to the CRIS’ reporting services. We will also present preliminary results from the Jisc Publications Router – Symplectic Elements integration pilot in which we are participating. The Publications Router is a JISC-led project to create a system that automatically sends notifications about research articles to an institutions’ repository, together with full-text copies of those articles where available. This has the potential to both streamline open access deposit workflows and enrich metadata records in the CRIS system.
“OhioLINK has 188 member libraries from 89 higher education institutions plus the State Library of Ohio: 16 public universities, 51 independent university and college libraries, 23 two-year college libraries, 16 regional campus libraries, 8 law school libraries, and 5 medical school libraries. Membership includes three R1 institutions, five ARL libraries, and the Cleveland Clinic. Given the makeup of the institutional membership, sometimes OhioLINK can serve as a microcosm of the U.S. higher educational library market as a whole. (For an OhioLINK-specific analysis of institutional type and library alignment within the context of the University Futures, Library Futures OCLC Research/Ithaka S+R research report, see Constance Malpas’ presentation “University Futures, Library Futures: institutional and library directions in OhioLINK.”)
These are OhioLINK publishing and usage figures for one major STEM publisher in 2018. OhioLINK institutions published approximately 1,000 articles in the 900+ titles for which OhioLINK had a subscription. “Publish” activity from OhioLINK researchers accounted for about 0.4% of the total articles for which members had subscription access. “Read” activity was 1,900,000+ full text downloads. One institution accounted for 34% of all published articles in these titles; another group of three institutions accounted for a further 36% for a total of 70% output from the top four publishing institutions; 22 institutions made up the rest of the publishing activity out of a consortium of 90 institutions. The top four publishing institutions published between 10% and 12% of their articles in any kind of OA form (not by consortial agreement or subsidy, but acting individually either at the institutional or author level.) In total, OhioLINK-affiliated authors paid APCs for approximately 100 OA articles: 80% fully OA journals, 20% OA in hybrid journals….
We would expect any Read and Publish deals from publishers to conform to our particular publishing profile, rather than to a California Digital Library profile or a Projekt Deal profile. For some consortia, such as those composed of mostly private colleges, there is even less publishing activity. There is no standard deal that will fit all consortia; some consortia may not be offered certain OA deals at all, or the OA deals on offer will not be financially viable without significant outside sources of funding. Our collective question is: Given that much of the revenue coming from our members is, and always will be, from “Read” = subscription funding, what are the implications for the future financial burden of “Publish” consortia as more institutions become free riders? How will “Read” institutions/consortia participate in OA funding initiatives?: