“ACRL is allocating $30,000 in the 2020 fiscal year to offer grants of up to $5,000 each for new research in areas suggested by ACRL’s new research agenda Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future (freely available for PDF download or purchase in print). This program is one of several developed by ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC) to support our strategic goal that the academic and research library workforce accelerates the transition to more open and equitable systems of scholarship….”
“Libraries are increasingly considering scaling back their subscriptions or cancelling big deals altogether. Yet, the question of how and where to reinvest the resources that become available is both far from settled and increasingly pressing. As we start to move away from the subscription model, we should be intentional about crafting the vision for open research communication we strive to build and how we intend to build it.
This forum, “If I Had A Million Dollars: Collective Reinvestment in Open Infrastructure,” will invite active participation throughout the session in a facilitated discussion with experts representing both libraries and research funders. …”
“For many years, the academic and research library workforce has worked to accelerate the transition to more open and equitable systems of scholarship. While significant progress has been made, barriers remain. The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) seeks to stimulate further advances through this action-oriented research agenda, which is designed to provide practical, actionable information for academic librarians; include the perspectives of historically underrepresented communities in order to expand the profession’s understanding of research environments and scholarly communication systems; and point librarians and other scholars toward important research questions to investigate.
This report represents a yearlong process of reviewing the scholarly and practice-based literature to take into account established investigation coupled with extensive public consultation to identify the major problems facing the academic library community. Through interviews, focus groups, workshops, and an online survey, over 1,000 members of the ACRL community offered their thoughts and expertise to shape this research agenda. Incorporating guidance and input from ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee and an advisory panel, this document recommends ways to make the scholarly communications and research environment more open, inclusive, and equitable….”
“ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee together with Rebecca Kennison and Nancy Maron – the authors selected by ACRL to design, develop, and deliver a new ACRL research agenda for scholarly communications and the research environment – are grateful for the feedback received thus far on the draft document for public comment. To ensure the robust community engagement continues, the deadline to comment has been extended to COB Friday, January 11, 2019….
Your input is crucial for ensuring the final document is as helpful as possible both in guiding academic librarians on actions that can be taken now to promote a more open system of scholarship and identifying essential areas that merit further investigation….”
“Rebecca Kennison and Nancy Maron, selected by ACRL to design, develop, and deliver a new research agenda for scholarly communications and the research environment, have been hard at work since March 2018 with guidance and input from ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC). ACRL is now seeking public comment on a draft document by COB Friday, January 4, 2019….
By sharing this draft publicly for feedback, ACRL seeks to continue the robust community engagement, which has included input from over 1,000 individuals via expert interviews, online focus groups, a survey, and large group conversations at major conferences. ACRL wants the final document to be as helpful as possible both in guiding academic librarians on actions that can be taken now to promote a more open system of scholarship and identifying essential areas that merit further investigation….”
“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)….”
“In keeping with its role as a bellwether for a changing profession, the Roadshow’s latest revision points to several clear lessons in designing engagement. At a high level, engagement must recognize the diversity of scholarly communication and the variety of paths libraries are following. For many stakeholders within and beyond the library, the perception that scholarly communication is simply a conversation about open access to scholarly articles remains. This can be dispiriting for librarians who may feel that if they cannot sustain a large open access fund or drive a campus mandate then scholarly communication “isn’t for their campus.” Similarly, campus administrators and faculty may dismiss scholarly communication as little more than library complaints about funding.
Instead, scholarly communication should be presented as an opportunity to do new things that advance the core mission of the library and the institution. Scholarly communication should be understood as supporting exciting new types of scholarship, documenting the broader impact of the university’s work, reducing barriers to student success, and enabling compliance with complicated mandates from national funding agencies. The Roadshow’s use of a pre-survey and modules is one way to tailor outreach to the priorities of diverse institutions, but on-campus engagement can do this in a variety of ways from partnering with campus stakeholders to department-specific work on pressing issues.
A second major lesson learned from our revision is that engagement should be led by presenters that balance their own expertise with work that highlights the expertise of others in the community. Of course, exercises and workshops need to present new information and skills with high levels of credibility, but evaluations make it clear that expertise is valued no more highly than attributes like an engaging presentation style or opportunities to do hands-on work. A session where peers work through a concrete problem together is likely to be more impactful than a dry lecture from even the most respected expert presenter.
This is especially true in the context of scholarly communication where the issues are new and rapidly evolving so expertise is likely to be fluid and shared across the institution. The Roadshow has put a premium on group work because it accommodates diverse levels of expertise. At almost any institution, every librarian is an expert in something and a novice in something else. An exercise or series of events that lets individuals show off their own expertise and then learn from others is effective for all participants, rather than racing past those who are new or slowing down to the frustration of those with more experience.
Finally, scholarly communication engagement is most effective when it is designed to develop a community of practice, rather than impart specific skills. There is too much content to be covered in any single day. A workshop can introduce shared vocabulary, present case studies, or provide a framework, but scholarly communication is too large and fast moving to be covered in a workshop or lecture. Instead, it should be integrated into the core work of the library through targeted engagement that supports pilot projects and new models of librarianship.”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”