Bryant Fellowships, Harvard Library

“Harvard Library is pleased to announce the revival of the Douglas W. Bryant Fellowships, beginning this fall. Each cycle, awards of $500 to $2000 will be given to support independent research or scholarly activities by Harvard Library staff….

Fellowship recipients must produce a tangible product (i.e. scholarly article, monograph, working paper, app, code, website, etc.) as the result of their activities. This product must be made open-access/open-source….”

Universities and knowledge sharing

Abstract : Universities are key sites of knowledge creation. Governments and research funders are increasingly interested in ensuring that their investments in the production of new knowledge deliver a quantifiable return on investment, including in the form of ‘impact’. Ensuring that research outputs are not locked behind paywalls, and that research data can be interrogated and built upon are increasingly central to efforts to improve the effectiveness of global research landscapes. We argue that mandating and promoting open access (OA) for published research outputs, as well as the sharing of research data are important elements of building a vibrant open knowledge system, but they are not enough. Supporting diversity within knowledge-making institutions; enabling collaboration across boundaries between universities and wider communities; and addressing inequalities in access to knowledge resources and in opportunities to contribute to knowledge making processes are also important. New tools are needed to help universities, funders, and communities to understand the extent to which a university is operating as an effective open knowledge institution; as well as the steps that might be taken to improve open knowledge performance. This paper discusses our team’s efforts to develop a model of Open Knowledge that is not confined to measures of OA and open data. The Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative is a project of the Centre for Culture and Technology at Curtin University. With funding from the university, we are exploring the extent to which universities are functioning as effective open knowledge institutions; as well as the types of information that universities, funders, and communities might need to understand an institution’s open knowledge performance and how it might be improved. The challenges of data collection on open knowledge practices at scale, and across national, cultural and linguistic boundaries are also discussed.

COAPI Report on Recent Activities and Ongoing Projects, July 2017- June 2019

“COAPI Activities, 2017-2019 ? Surpassed the 100-member milestone, with 109 member institutions as of June 2019 ? Also created documentation and workflows for onboarding new members ? Successful and ongoing engagement with SPARC, including conversations about effective collaboration with Nick Shockey ? Monthly COAPI Steering Committee meetings (8-member leadership group) ? Monthly reports from the SPARC liaison to the SPARC OA Working Group (Jere Odell for 2017-), following Ada Emmett ? COAPI Steering Committee chair representing COAPI on the SPARC International OA Week Advisory Committee (Laura Bowering Mullen 2017-2018, Devin Soper 2018-2019) ? Added new resources to the COAPI Toolkit, including a bibliography of relevant studies and publications ? Completed various updates to the COAPI website, including redesigning and creating new content for the “About” and “Resources” pages ? Migrated legacy steering committee documentation from Dropbox to Google Drive ? Introduced annual virtual meetings to supplement biennial in-person meetings (see agendas from April 2018 and April 2019) ? Organized panel presentation and biennial in-person meeting at ALA Annual 2018 in New Orleans ? Decided to hold biennial meeting at a library conference because the biennial SPARC meeting (our previous venue) was discontinued ? Created COAPI Backgrounder and swag items (stickers, buttons) to give away at events ? Panel presentation: “The Care and Feeding of an Open Access Policy: Adoption, Implementation, and Assessment,” with Anne Langley, Jamie Wittenberg, and Jere Odell ? In-person meeting agenda ? Updated COAPI Process and Procedure Document, notably to remove the Community Member category, which was unused and redundant relative to the Affiliate Member category ? Launched series of COAPI Community Calls to facilitate more discussion and engagement both within and beyond the COAPI membership ? Aug. 14, 2018 – Outreach Strategies ? Oct. 16, 2018 – Copyright & Rights-retention Policies ? Dec. 18, 2018 – COAPI Toolkit ? Feb. 18, 2019 – Implementation Models ? June 12, 2019 – Policy Assessment ? Launched new COAPI Twitter account, @coapioa, thus far used to advertise Community Calls and tweet out conversation during the events (using the hashtag #coapicomm) ? Published blog post for Open Access Week 2017, 2018 ? Formed three new COAPI working groups: ? Community Call WG ? Copyright WG ? Small College & University WG ? Updated and consolidated existing COAPI membership lists ? Signed letters of support for federal bills and regulations, including ? H.R. 6501, The Well-Informed, Scientific, and Efficient (WISE) Government Act ? S. 1701, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? AB 2192, the extension and expansion of the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act”

COAPI Report on Recent Activities and Ongoing Projects, July 2017- June 2019

“COAPI Activities, 2017-2019 ? Surpassed the 100-member milestone, with 109 member institutions as of June 2019 ? Also created documentation and workflows for onboarding new members ? Successful and ongoing engagement with SPARC, including conversations about effective collaboration with Nick Shockey ? Monthly COAPI Steering Committee meetings (8-member leadership group) ? Monthly reports from the SPARC liaison to the SPARC OA Working Group (Jere Odell for 2017-), following Ada Emmett ? COAPI Steering Committee chair representing COAPI on the SPARC International OA Week Advisory Committee (Laura Bowering Mullen 2017-2018, Devin Soper 2018-2019) ? Added new resources to the COAPI Toolkit, including a bibliography of relevant studies and publications ? Completed various updates to the COAPI website, including redesigning and creating new content for the “About” and “Resources” pages ? Migrated legacy steering committee documentation from Dropbox to Google Drive ? Introduced annual virtual meetings to supplement biennial in-person meetings (see agendas from April 2018 and April 2019) ? Organized panel presentation and biennial in-person meeting at ALA Annual 2018 in New Orleans ? Decided to hold biennial meeting at a library conference because the biennial SPARC meeting (our previous venue) was discontinued ? Created COAPI Backgrounder and swag items (stickers, buttons) to give away at events ? Panel presentation: “The Care and Feeding of an Open Access Policy: Adoption, Implementation, and Assessment,” with Anne Langley, Jamie Wittenberg, and Jere Odell ? In-person meeting agenda ? Updated COAPI Process and Procedure Document, notably to remove the Community Member category, which was unused and redundant relative to the Affiliate Member category ? Launched series of COAPI Community Calls to facilitate more discussion and engagement both within and beyond the COAPI membership ? Aug. 14, 2018 – Outreach Strategies ? Oct. 16, 2018 – Copyright & Rights-retention Policies ? Dec. 18, 2018 – COAPI Toolkit ? Feb. 18, 2019 – Implementation Models ? June 12, 2019 – Policy Assessment ? Launched new COAPI Twitter account, @coapioa, thus far used to advertise Community Calls and tweet out conversation during the events (using the hashtag #coapicomm) ? Published blog post for Open Access Week 2017, 2018 ? Formed three new COAPI working groups: ? Community Call WG ? Copyright WG ? Small College & University WG ? Updated and consolidated existing COAPI membership lists ? Signed letters of support for federal bills and regulations, including ? H.R. 6501, The Well-Informed, Scientific, and Efficient (WISE) Government Act ? S. 1701, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? AB 2192, the extension and expansion of the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act”

Narrowing the Gap Between Publication and Access: Is a Mandate Enough to Get Us Closer?[v1] | Preprints

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.

UC Santa Cruz joins the international effort to make research accessible to all

In June, the University of California Santa Cruz joined its sister UC campuses in taking an important step towards the goal of making all scholarly journal literature freely available to the world by endorsing the international open access (OA) initiative, OA2020Led by the Max Planck Digital Library, OA2020 is a global alliance committed to new models of scholarly publishing that ensure outputs are open and re-usable and that the costs behind their dissemination are transparent and economically sustainable.

By adding its name to the list of 136 signatory organizations, UCSC demonstrates its strong commitment to the values the UC Academic Senate has held since the adoption of its Open Access Policy in 2013. Further, it emphasizes our campus’s support of the Senate-wide UCOLASC’s Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication and the UC Systemwide Library And Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) call to action aimed at transforming how the UC Libraries approach journal negotiations….”

Sustaining Values and Scholarship: A Statement by the Provosts of the Big Ten Academic Alliance

“The current system of academic publishing is complex and has evolved unlike traditional markets. In its current state, academic publishing behaves as a price-inelastic market, with little relationship between demand and price. Cost increases for publications have been unrelenting with highs of 10- 12% annual inflation in the 1990s and now a more “modest” rate of 5-6% that still outpaces the CPI. Publisher mergers and acquisition of non-profit society publications by commercial entities, along with “big deal” aggregations for publisher databases, have contributed to an unsustainable model. Today, five commercial publishers control a majority market share of academic journals, the venues in which a large proportion of our scientific and other discoveries are documented and shared. The majority of published research is locked behind paywalls and accessible only to a shrinking number of institutions whose libraries can afford the subscription or license.

In 2006, we shared an open letter in support of taxpayer access to federally-funded research. In 2012, we repeated our advocacy for open access in the face of potentially restrictive legislation to curtail that openness. Since then, our institutions have further invested in systems, repositories, and local policies to support open access to the works of our faculty. And we have encouraged our libraries and faculty to work together to assess the value of purchased or licensed content and the appropriate terms governing its use. With Big Ten libraries’ expenditures on journals exceeding $190 million, we recognize that our institutions are privileged in the level of access we provide our campuses, yet the status quo is not sustainable….

Demand for open access continues and has been furthered by the rise of open access publications, federal and institutional open repositories, and an insistence by public funders that research results must be widely available—that equity be fostered. While no current model offers a fully tested framework to recognize the intellectual and financial resources our universities contribute to publishing, it is incumbent on our institutions to advance more sustainable modes of funding publishing. …”

Sustaining Values and Scholarship: A Statement by the Provosts of the Big Ten Academic Alliance

Universities are fundamentally about creating and sharing knowledge. Research and scholarship reflect the cumulative benefits of recorded knowledge. And students learn by exploring the discoveries and creative endeavors that have been shared over time. Simply stated, past knowledge fuels new knowledge, advancing global progress and individual growth. However, our systems of sharing knowledge no longer work in support of our academic enterprise.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance continues its advocacy for a sustainable and open ecosystem of publication. Collectively, our institutions’ more than 50,000 faculty are supported by over $10 billion (2017) in research funding, and our institutions have similarly invested significantly in our capacity to further our missions to advance knowledge. Together, we produce roughly 15% of the research publications in the United States….”

UW Faculty Senate votes to support UW Libraries bargaining and licensing priorities in scholarly journal subscription negotiations — UW Libraries

On May 16, the UW Faculty Senate voted unanimously to approve a Class C Resolution expressing its support for the UW Libraries Licensing Principles and bargaining priorities in upcoming journal package negotiations with major journal publishers. The legislation, sponsored by the Faculty Council on University Libraries, endorses the Libraries’ negotiation and licensing priorities and voices support for:

  • Bringing down subscription costs and increases to a sustainable level that will not imperil other collection and service needs
  • Ending non-disclosure agreements to allow the Libraries to disclose their contractual terms and permit greater market transparency
  • Allowing interlibrary loan to facilitate resource sharing
  • Protecting the rights of users to share articles with students and colleagues
  • Ensuring the privacy and data security of all users
  • Protecting the ability of students and researchers to continue to access journals and articles
  • Supporting the University’s Open Access policies by allowing re-use and embargo-free deposit rights and protecting researchers’ copyright in their own research
  • Enabling greater market flexibility and responsiveness by negotiating contracts on a 3-year basis
  • Providing equitable service and access to information for all our library users….”