“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.”
“ACRL announces that its special collections and cultural heritage-focused journal RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage became an open access publication beginning with its Spring 2016 30th anniversary issue.”
“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 …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”
“Open access for monographs and book chapters is a relatively new area of publishing, and there are many ways of approaching it. With this in mind, a recent publication from the Wellcome Trust aims to provide some guidance for publishers to consider when developing policies and processes for open access books. The Wellcome Trust recognises that implementation around publishing monographs and book chapters open access is in flux, and invites publishers to email Cecy Marden at firstname.lastname@example.org with any suggestions for further guidance that would be useful to include in this document. ‘Open Access Monographs and Book Chapters: A practical guide for publishers’ is available to download as a pdf from the Wellcome Trust website.”
“The purpose of this post is to shed some light on a specific issue in the transition to open access that particularly affects small and low-cost publishers and to suggest one strategy to address this issue. In the words of one Resource Requirements interviewee: ‘So the other set of members that we used to have about forty library members , but when we went to open access online, we lost the whole bunch of libraries. Yeah, so basically we sent everybody ,you know, a letter saying we are going to open access online, the annual membership is only $30, we hope you will continue to support us even though there are no longer print journals, and then a whole flu of cancellations came in from a whole bunch of libraries, which we had kind of thought might happen but given how cheap we are, I have to say I was really disappointed when it indeed did happen especially from whole bunch of [deleted] libraries [for which our journal is extremely relevant]. I was going, seriously $30?’ Comments: for a university library, a society membership fee, when not required for journal subscriptions, may be difficult to justify from an accounting perspective. $30 is a small cost; however, for a university the administrative work of tracking such memberships and cutting a check every year likely exceeds the $30 cost. With 40 library members at a cost of $30, the total revenue for this journal from this source was $1,200. A university or university library could sponsor this amount at less than the cost of many an article processing charge. The university and library where the faculty member is located have a support program for open access journals; clearly the will, and some funding, is there. One of the challenges is transitioning subscription dollars to support for open access, as I address in my 2013 First Monday article. Following is one suggestion for libraries, or for faculty to suggest to their libraries: why not engage your faculty who are independent or society publishers to gain support for cancellations or tough negotiations and lower prices for the big deals of large, highly profitable commercial publishers that I argue are critical to redirect funding to our own publishing activities? Here is one scenario that may help to explain the potential …”
[From Google’s English] “UKB , the consortium of thirteen university libraries and the National Library, the objectives of The Hague Declaration endorsed by signing the joint declaration. All signatories state that there are no copyright restrictions are scientific results and research data. Everyone should be able to freely analyze facts and data.Licensing and copyright rules may not raise barriers before. The knowledge economy has an interest in global open access or open science. According to the statement must be contained in the European copyright rules that authors the right to (re) use of data and texts not lose by signing a contract with a publisher …”
” Demand for a service to help institutions capture their research outputs remains unabated, and any drive to help automate it will need to break challenging new ground. Jisc Publications Router is now set for a new phase of development as it seeks to do just that. It aims to become a permanent service in 2016, expanding at an accelerated pace the range of content it can deliver … It’s difficult for institutions to identify accepted research articles by their academics, according to a recent report to Jisc, as they seek to make progress in implementing the open access policy for the next REF. Jisc Publications Router is a system that gathers information about journal articles from content providers such as publishers. By looking at the affiliations of the co-authors, it then sends a notification to the relevant institution(s). This could be at or near the point of acceptance, for example, or final publication. It could consist of metadata only, or it could include full-text files as well, depending on what the content provider can send. The institutions can then capture this information onto their systems, including their open repositories. In some cases, the metadata will include details of an embargo period the repository should respect before it makes the full text freely available. The initial Router project, funded by Jisc and operated by EDINA (University of Edinburgh) aimed to demonstrate a prototype system. That has been a success: the system has delivered real articles to real institutions in ways that they have used and found helpful, saving them time and effort …”