“3.1. University Authors are encouraged to provide the University of Lethbridge Library an electronic copy of the finalized text of all scholarly articles. The electronic copy shall be provided to the University of Lethbridge Library (firstname.lastname@example.org) prior to the date of its publication.
3.2. University Authors grant the University of Lethbridge the non-exclusive permission to permanently archive, preserve, reproduce and openly disseminate, in any medium1, all scholarly articles authored by the University Author, provided that the articles are properly attributed to the University Authors; this permission is granted for the sole objective of archiving the articles for non-commercial purposes. Permission is granted on the understanding that University Authors will not be charged any use or service fees for activities associated with this Policy….”
“While maintaining an institutional repository (IR) is now an established university library service, both the origin stories and purposes of our repositories vary greatly. Is it time to re-evaluate the IR and its purpose?
Given the staff, time, and technical resources needed to support an IR, are we getting sufficient return on our investment? How do we even analyze our IRs to determine ROI? Do we need to redefine the purpose of our IRs? How will our IRs change over the next decade, whether or not we redefine the purpose? How will ETD and OA policies or the collections as data movement influence those changes?
Please join us on Wednesday, January 22nd, at 1:00 PM ET for a COAPI Community Call to investigate the big questions around our IRs. Setting the stage will be Ellen Dubinsky, Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of Arizona, and Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)….”
Abstract: Open Science is creating new forms of scientific interaction that were impossible or undreamed of in an earlier age. This has a strong impact on core academic processes like research, education and innovation. It is, for instance, easier to replicate an experiment if the relevant data sets are digitally available to any scientist who wishes to corroborate her colleague’s findings.TU Delft has a long history of engagement with Open Science. Yet, with its Open Science Programme 2020-2024, Research and Education in the Open Era, TU Delft wishes to take Open Science to the next level: a situation in which Open Science has become the default way of practising research and education, and the “information era” has become the “open era”. It is TU Delft’s ambition to be frontrunner in this revolutionary process. This is reflected in the TU Delft Strategic Framework 2018-2024, with “openness” as one of its major principles.The TU Delft Open Science Programme 2020-2024 tackles all areas of scholarly engagement where restrictions limit the flow of academic knowledge. It proposes new approaches to the process of research, education and innovation, with a strong focus on transparency, integrity and efficiency.The programme consists of five interrelated projects: Open Education, Open Access, Open Publishing Platform, FAIR Data, and FAIR Software. The projects are aimed at creating and disseminating various types of resources for the benefit of TU Delft researchers, teachers and students, as well as the general public. They will range from educational materials and software to a publishing platform. All outputs of the programme will be as ‘FAIR’ as possible: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.
“On Tuesday 26 November, the Executive Board of TU Delft endorsed the Open Science Programme 2020 – 2024, ‘Research and Education in the Open Era’. Over the next four years, the university will further its efforts to make open research and education a standard part of scientific practice. Prof. dr. Rob Mudde, vice-rector magnificus of TU Delft: “It is our ambition to be the frontrunner in this area. Our aim is that Open Science becomes the default setting for research and education at TU Delft.” …”
In 2018, the Data and Scholarly Communication Services Unit (DSCS) at the University of Colorado Boulder began implementing two open access (OA) policy workflows with the aim of increasing content in the institutional repository CU Scholar, expanding awareness of the campus OA policy that was passed in 2015, and decreasing the burden on researchers for participation in the policy. DSCS leveraged collaborative relationships with other library departments and campus units in order to mobilize the data, infrastructure, procedures, and documentation to execute these workflows. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) workflow identifies existing open access publications by CU Boulder faculty and mediates deposit in order to make them available in CU Scholar. The liaison outreach workflow partners with liaison librarians to request from faculty preprints and author’s final manuscripts of publications in which the publisher version may have copyright restrictions. At present, the DOAJ workflow has resulted in 754 articles deposited in CU Scholar, and the liaison outreach workflow has resulted in 91 articles deposited. Each of these workflows pose challenges that have required flexibility, experimentation, and clear communication between stakeholders. This case study, which includes detailed descriptions of both open access policy workflows, initial results, and plans for future implementation, may serve as a guide for other institutions wishing to adopt and/or adapt institutional repository workflows and forge collaborative relationships to further open access initiatives in their local context.
“This 61-page report [$114 for one PDF copy] looks closely at academic library activity to support open access. The study gives highly precise data on librarian perceptions of faculty support for open access, and for library activities in peer review, open access publishing and other ventures and activity to support open access, including the payment of author fees and development of institutional digital repositories. The study helps its readers to answer questions such as: What percentage of libraries are active in helping to develop peer review networks? How much do libraries spend on author fees? How many themselves publish open access journals? What percentage of faculty routinely deposit their scholarly articles in the institutional digital repository? How effective have librarians been in promoting the repository to faculty? How do librarians evaluate the current effectiveness of future probably impact of open access? How do librarians view the level of support that they are getting from university management on open access issues? How many staff positions are largely devoted to various specified open access activities?
Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:
Public colleges were significantly more likely than private ones to report support from university or college administration for open access initiatives.
25% of respondents from research universities reported more than just modest progress over the past two years in convincing faculty to deposit their research articles into institutional digital repositories.
13.64% of the MA/PHD level colleges and universities in the sample published their own open access journals.
Nearly 24% of respondents from institutions with enrolment of greater than 10,000 FTE were active in developing peer review networks for open access publications.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.”
“Policy should incentivise. In the case of the UKSCL model institutional open access policy there are:
Incentives for the academic: the retention of academic freedom to publish in the venue of choice knowing that rights have legally been retained in order to meet funder open access aims
Incentives for the library and finance directors: reassurance that funder mandates are not accompanied by significant new financial burdens for the institution
And finally, incentives for publishers: to work with us so that an affordable transition can be achieved, and so that it is the Version of Record which is freely and publicly available on publication.
Finally, If I were to have one wish, it would be this: that, having done all this work to establish this legal approach to solving first, the OA policy stack, and now, the challenges for implementing cOAlition S aims, that the policy was not, in the end, needed, and that we were instead able to find an affordable and workable route to full and immediate open access….”
“Key Recommendations Develop a National Strategy • National Library, CONZUL, and LIANZA should work together collaboratively to lead the development of a national level strategy. • Each University and Crown Research Institute should appoint a senior leader who can manage strategy development and local coordination, while liaising with the wider research community. • M?ori scientists, scholars, and researchers need to be specifically invited into this conversation and supported to participate. National Library, the Universities, and Crown Research Institutes should work to create the conditions needed for self-determination and an equitable outcome. Fill the Knowledge Gaps New Zealand has critical gaps in its knowledge around open access, scholarly publishing, and open data. To create good policies and move forward with this transformation, more research and more funding to conduct that research is needed. There is room for multiple robust research projects to help understand the needs of researchers, their current behaviors, and what interventions make the most sense in New Zealand. Centre Care • Work with the Tertiary Education Union to reform the Performance Based Research Funding system to support well-being and disentangle from proprietary non-transparent metrics. Refocus on traditional peer review and innovative ways of measuring excellence. • Fund and support education for librarians, academics, and administrators to develop a deeper understanding of scholarly communication and open access issues. • Support public and university community focused education campaigns to engage a wide range of people in open access issues and invite them into the conversation. Strengthen Open Access Infrastructure Transforming our scholarly communications system requires building both policy and technological infrastructure. To create a robust system that will support the kind of transformative change needed, we should prioritise developing this infrastructure as part of a deep engagement process with researchers, scholars, and scientists. • New Zealand universities should coordinate with our Australian counterparts and work to develop a regional response to Plan S. • Open Access policies across New Zealand universities and Crown Research Institutes should be harmonised to strengthen our national negotiating position – but, this process should be based on robust engagement with academics across disciplines and with the needs of M?ori and other marginalised scholars at the forefront. • Increase existing investment in university repositories to ensure that ‘green’ open access remains a robust path. • Expand the existing institutional repository system to Crown Research Institutes and others. • Develop a policy framework focused on carbon footprinting and monitoring to ensure that the system is as close to zero carbon as possible….”
“Of the potential solutions, open research practices are among the most promising. The argument is that transparency acts as an implicit quality control process. If others are able to scrutinise our work—not just the final published output, but the underlying data, code, and so on—researchers will be incentivised to ensure these are high quality.
So, if we think that research could benefit from improved quality control, and if we think that open research might have a role to play in this, why aren’t we all doing it? In a word: incentives….”