“The newly-launched library serviced a temporary collection of books — about 4 million in total, many in the public domain — with a targeted focus of supporting remote teaching, research activities and independent scholarship. For this service, students paid nothing.
This Open Library is now at the center of a lawsuit filed by major publishing corporations, including HarperCollins, Hatchett, Wiley and Random House, against the Internet Archives, a nonprofit website, alleging that the Open Library concept is a “mass copyright infringement.”
The lawsuit is scheduled for a federal court trial in 2021. The publishers are seeking to have the Open Library permanently shut down….
In an op-ed written for The Nation, journalist and new media pioneer Maria Bustillos took a critical look at the lawsuit, the concept of an open library and what ownership means when major publishers seek to change what it means to own a book….”
“Open Access is spelled with a capital O and a capital A at the Public Library of Science (or PLOS, for short), a nonprofit Open Access publisher. Among PLOS’s suite of journals, PLOS One is the nonprofit’s largest in number of articles published and its broadest in coverage, ranging as it does over all topics in the natural sciences and medicine, to include, as well, some in the social sciences, too. PLOS One appears only online, a format the staff bring into service to foster Open Access Science, whether they do this through initiatives for Open Citations and Open Abstracts, or through Transparent Peer Review, or also through PLOS One’s newest endeavor, registered reports.
Since its inception in 2006, PLOS One has been at the forefront of Open Access publishing. And today, against the trend to equate Impact Factors with journal names, PLOS One does not promote their own Impact Factor because the measure has been shown to be, at best, only an approximate indicator of research significance. However, in true PLOS fashion, PLOS One offers an alternative in various Article-Level Metrics. These ALMs (as the abbreviation goes) make a closer, tighter fit between value of research and quantifiable measures.
Joerg Heber is Editor-in-Chief of PLOS One. When you track Joerg Heber’s career in publishing, you get the sense of a clear mission: (1) provide access to good science and (2) make providing that access not only viable, but enviable….”
“The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) hosted a webinar concerning “Controlled Digital Lending in a Pandemic” on Wednesday September 30, 2020. The event feature speakers discussing the US, European, and international perspectives….”
“Should libraries be allowed digitally lend books they own? Maria Bustillos explains how a new lawsuit by major publishers could destroy the Internet Archive and end digital ownership in favor of restrictive licenses….”
“According to the filing, says [Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly], the Internet Archive “does what libraries have always done: buy, collect, preserve, and share our common culture. Its untested legal theory of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is [allegedly] a good faith and legal effort specifically designed to ‘mirror traditional library lending online.’
[Still quoting Albanese:] “Contrary to the publishers’ accusations, the filing states, the Internet Archive, and the hundreds of libraries that support CDL, are not pirates or thieves, they are librarians, striving to serve their patrons online just as they have done for centuries in the brick-and-mortar world.” …”
“The open science movement has been gaining momentum over the past decade, prompting initiatives such as cOAlition S, with its plan to increase open access publications. But while the goals of open science are welcomed by many, challenges remain. And top of the list is the researcher reward system.
This is the first episode in our short series on open science and the reward system. Host Dr. Stephane Berghmans, Elsevier VP of Academic and Research Relations EU, welcomes Prof. Jean-Claude Burgelman to the podcast. Prof. Burgelman is eminently qualified to talk about this topic. Not only is he a part-time Professor of Open Science Policy at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, he was recently Head of Unit Open Data Policies and Science Cloud at the European Commission and an open access envoy for the organization….”
“Over the last decade, many museums around the world have adopted an open access policy. From the US to Europe, the opening up of museums has meant that anybody can use, reuse, remix collections without any copyright restrictions. At the core of open access is the commitment to make heritage accessible for people regardless of conduct social or geographical barriers. For museums, this move has contributed immensely to brand-building and added social value. But how?
The National Gallery of Denmark (the Statens Museum for Kunst, aka SMK) in Copenhagen is one of the premier art museums of the country and home to several European art treasures. In this podcast, I spoke with Jonas Heide Smith – Head of Digital at SMK about their approach, learnings and challenges. Give it a listen or read on for the key takeaways….”
Abstract: The medical encounter can be overwhelming in term of the amount of information discussed, its technical nature, and the anxiety it can generate. Easy access to a secure audio recording from any internet enabled device is an available low cost technology that allows patients to “revisit the visit” either alone or sharing with caretakers and family. It has been introduced and tested outside the VA with evidence that it increases patient recall and understanding and may even improve physician performance. Little is known, however, about whether and to what extent these effects lead to better outcomes, such as improved treatment plan adherence and chronic disease self-management. This study is a randomized controlled trial designed ascertain whether easy access to audio recordings of the medical visit improves patients perception that they understand and can manage their own care, and leads to a variety of improved outcomes, such as better blood pressure and diabetes control, and fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations.
“The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org and we take a deep dive into the issues in this matter. Kyle Courtney, Copyright Advisor at Harvard University, and Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase have strong opinions in this matter, and were both involved in submitting Amicus Briefs on behalf of Public.Resources.Org. Join us for this engaging and informative conversation as we look at what the arguments are from both sides, and how Justices’ questions may shape the outcome of this case.
For more information on this case, check out the oral argument transcript [PDF], or listen here, and a primer with supportive materials from Ed Waters’ on Medium.
We also catch up with Emily Feltren from the American Association of Law Libraries to hear what else has been going on in Washington, DC in regards to legal information (we skip the impeachment stuff.) Believe it or not, there are things actually getting done in DC despite all the obvious gridlock.”