“My thinking has been heavily influenced by Karen Williams, former associate university librarian for academic programs at the University of Minnesota Libraries (UML) and her work to incorporate scholarly communication into the workflow of subject librarians/liaisons. In 2010, Kara Malenfant, ACRL senior strategist for special initiatives, detailed the collaboration and systems thinking approach that UML used to define and identify a baseline expertise in scholarly communication for their liaison librarians.4 Successful strategies that UML deployed included an investment in training and professional development that centered on scholarly communication for their liaisons, documenting expectations related to scholarly communication in position descriptions, creating annual goals per the expectations, and assessing how well liaison librarians were meeting the goals related to scholarly communication.
Williams expanded on her work at UML in an Association of Research Libraries (ARL) report that outlined emerging trends and new roles for liaison librarians.5 In this report, she and coauthor Janice Jaguszewski conducted a series of interviews with administrators at five ARL libraries. Using information gathered from the interviews, the authors identified six trends impacting liaison librarian roles at their institution. Among the six trends, the third trend discussed the intersections of copyright, intellectual property, and scholarly communication and the potential for subject/liaison librarians to partner and effectively participate in these activities serving as educators, consultants, and advocates….”
“Although librarians initially hoped institutional repositories (IRs) would grow through researcher self-archiving, practice shows that growth is much more likely through library-directed deposit. Libraries must then find efficient ways to ingest material into their IR to ensure growth and relevance.”
“Main points: The Commission proposes to fund a European Commission Open Research Publishing Platform (‘the platform’) The main aim of the platform is to offer Horizon 2020 beneficiaries a free and fast publication possibility for peer reviewed articles as well as pre-prints resulting from Horizon 2020 funding.
The platform will complement the current policy in Horizon 2020 – where open access to publication is mandatory – in order to balance obligations with incentives. The platform will be free to use for Horizon 2020 grantees at the point of delivery (the costs being fully covered by the proposed public procurement) and operate on a strictly voluntary basis. Furthermore, the platform will explore many features not found in traditional journals: not only open access but also open peer review, next generation metrics, and access to pre- prints; all of these are important components of Open Science (and part of the 2016 Amsterdam Call for Action).
To implement such a demand –driven platform we need a robust service, on par with the highest quality standards of scientific publishing; this can only be provided by outsourcing the implementation of the platform through a fully transparent public procurement process, allowing any entity to apply. Such an action has therefore been included in the Work Programme 2018.1 Over a duration of 4 years a maximum of 6.4 million € are foreseen for this action….”
Abstract: The current UK open access (OA) environment is extremely complex, and the concept of OA as a ‘good thing’ is being lost. Inefficient processes are unavoidable; an astonishing amount of money is changing hands; numerous new journals are being produced; OA policies and funding are regularly reviewed and open to change; and all the while, research dissemination is evolving. Authors are caught in the middle of a complicated, and sometimes conflicting, mixture of requirements from funders and publishers. Many researchers want to use new models to distribute their findings and discuss them with peers. University research support staff attempt to filter policy requirements and simplify instructions and procedures for authors, whilst supporting them in using all forms of dissemination. This presentation focuses on the difficulties encountered when managing OA support for researchers within a large research-intensive institution, and challenges publishers with a wish list.
“This primer addresses key issues that research funders encounter when considering the adoption and implementation of an open data policy. The guide covers big-picture topics such as how to decide on the range of activities an open data policy should cover. It also delves into areas of very specific concern, such as options for where data can be deposited, and how privacy and other concerns can be managed.”
“Presentation at the FOSTERplus project workshop on “fostering the practical implementation of open science in horizon 2020 and beyond”, at the Open Science FAIR conference in Athens, September, 7 2017.”
I’d like to share a little bit about the road to OA policy adoption and implementation at FSU. By reflecting on some of the factors that paved the way to our successful vote, as well as the nature of the work that followed, my hope is that our experience might help or encourage those who are considering or working toward adopting a policy at their own institutions.
“Background: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in understanding the potential effects of a policy requiring open access to peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research the foundation funds. Methods: We collected data on more than 2000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open access policies might have affected grantee publishing habits. Results: We found that 99.3% of the articles published by grantees would have complied with a policy that requires open access within 12 months of publication. We also estimated the maximum annual costs to GBMF for covering fees associated with “gold open access” to be between $400,000 and $2,600,000 annually. Discussion: Based in part on this study, GBMF has implemented a new open access policy that requires grantees make peer-reviewed publications fully available within 12 months.”