“Elsevier needs to do more fix a “disjoint” with academics and to demonstrate its value to universities, according to a vice-president at the publishing giant.
Gemma Hersh, senior vice-president for global research solutions at Elsevier, argued that the company offered value for money to its customers and contributed positively to research, despite the decisions of many German and Swedish universities, as well as the University of California system, not to renew their subscriptions….
Ms Hersh said that much of the criticism of Elsevier was misplaced….
Ms Hersh claimed that some critics had mistaken parent company Relx’s profit margin – 19 per cent – with its operating margin of 37 per cent, referencing the £942 million it made on revenues of about £2.5 billion last year….”
“Open Educational Resources (OER), or learning objects that are explicitly licensed so that others can retain, reuse, and revise them, continue to gain traction in higher education, both as a potential solution to the rising cost of textbooks and as an impetus for improving pedagogy. As a result, several libraries have established incentive programs and outreach to raise instructor awareness of OER and increase OER adoption and creation on their campuses. In order to lead these programs, librarians must intentionally prepare for instructor misconceptions, gaps in knowledge, and questions. Building upon Lyrasis’ introductory course on OER offered in August 2019, this course will provide participants with an overview of common myths related to OER, including concerns about peer review and comprehensiveness, as well as barriers instructors face when adopting OER, including a lack of familiarity with Creative Commons and the need for ancillary materials. Potential solutions and talking points will be discussed. The session will conclude with a short overview of current issues that librarians working with OER should be familiar with. While some background on OER will be covered, this session is intended for librarians that already have a working knowledge of how OER are defined and why they are important….”
Abstract: This 48-page report, based primarily on a survey of 73 largely research-oriented colleges and universities, presents the views of library directors, deans, university librarians and other high level library officials about the current state of and future plans for the library’s institutional digital repository. The study helps its readers to answer questions such as: how much are libraries currently spending on their repositories and how much do they plan to spend in the future? How much staff labor is being spent on the repository and have staffs or use of staff time grown in recent years? How satisfied is upper library management with the digital repository? What are its plans for the repository over the next few years – for outreach, marketing, platforms, and more?
Data in the report is broken out by institutional type and size and other variables; for example data is presented separately for R1 and R2 level research institutions, for doctoral institutions and for all other types of college. In addition, the data is broken out for some personal variables of the survey respondent, such as job title and age range.
Just of few of the report’s many findings are that:
More than 88% of the R1 level institutions in the sample had an institutional digital repository.
49.32% of survey participants felt that their institutional spending on their repositories would remain more or less the same over the next year.
Over the past three years private colleges have been more active than public ones in adding staff to their repositories.”
“Over the past 18 months, university library consortia in Germany, Sweden and California have cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals. This is because we have not yet reached agreement on how to support their objectives, which include making researchers’ published articles immediately open access.
Elsevier deeply regrets this situation. We fully support open access. And we recognise the benefits and importance of open access to many research communities. By sharing our perspective, we hope to build support to move things forward globally….”
Abstract: In Europe, some public funders have launched a high-profile open-access initiative that would ultimately require grantees to publish only in journals that immediately make papers free to all. Now, one prominent U.S. research program, the Cancer Moonshot at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, is starting to require immediate open access to the peer-reviewed publications it funds. That is a big change from the current policy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NCI’s parent agency. NIH requires only that final papers be available through NIH’s full-text PubMedCentral site within 12 months of publication—a delay that publishers cherish, saying it safeguards subscription revenues and keeps journals viable.
“This report presents data from 73 academic libraries about their open access publication fee payment practices. The 53-page study enables its end users to answer questions such as: How much have libraries spent in the past year on publication fees for open access and hybrid journals for their institution’s authors? How much will they spend in the next year? What percentage of libraries pay such fees at all or have plans to? What share of these fees are paid by libraries and what share by other departments and entities of the college or university? Have academic libraries partnered with consortia or other libraries to negotiate these fees? How many articles did the pay for in the past year? How many do they plan to pay for in the next year?
Data in the report is broken out for R1 and R2 research universities, for doctoral level institutions and for those offering only BA/MA degrees. In addition the data is broken out for public and private colleges, and by enrollment and tuition levels, and other variables, including work title, age and gender of the survey participant.
Some of the report’s many findings are that:
35.3% of R1 research universities in the sample had a line item in their budgets for the payment of author processing fees for hybrid and open access journals
20.51% of public institutions sampled said that departments or entities other than the academic library at their college or university contributed to the payment of author processing fees.
5.88% of BA/MA granting colleges in the sample have partnered with other colleges or universities or consortia to negotiate the level of author processing fees with publishers of hybrid or open access journals….”
“As art installations go, it is low key: a filing cabinet filled with meticulously labelled hanging folders. Visitors are welcome to browse under any heading that sparks their interest: publicly available gun trace data; the Nanjing massacre death toll; English language rules internalised by native speakers; how much Spotify pays each artist per play of song. The folders are all empty.
The work, titled “The Library of Missing Datasets”, is by Mimi Onuoha, an artist and adjunct professor at New York University. The aim, she says, is to expose the “blank spots in spaces that are otherwise saturated with data”. The blanks can reveal hidden biases in a society….”
Abstract: We conducted an audit of 60 clinical psychology journals, covering the first 2 quartiles by impact factor on Web of Science. We evaluated editorial policies in 5 domains crucial to reproducibility and transparency (prospective registration, data sharing, preprints, endorsement of reporting guidelines and conflict of interest [COI] disclosure). We examined implementation in a randomly selected cross-sectional sample of 201 articles published in 2017 in the “best practice” journals, defined as having explicit supportive policies in 4 out of 5 domains. Our findings showed that 15 journals cited prospective registration, 40 data sharing, 15 explicitly permitted preprints, 28 endorsed reporting guidelines, and 52 had mandatory policies for COI disclosure. Except for COI disclosure, few policies were mandatory: registration in 15 journals, data sharing in 1, and reporting guidelines for randomized trials in 18 and for meta-analyses in 15. Seventeen journals were identified as “best practice.” An analysis of recent articles showed extremely low compliance for prospective registration (3% articles) and data sharing (2%). One preprint could be identified. Reporting guidelines were endorsed in 19% of the articles, though for most articles this domain was rated as nonapplicable. Only half of the articles included a COI disclosure. Desired open science policies should become clear and mandatory, and their enforcement streamlined by reducing the multiplicity of guidelines and templates.
Abstract: The emergence of open access is one of the most significant changes to the world of scholarly publications since the migration from print to digital publishing began. Reports of some authors have demonstrated how libraries across the membership are changing, in response to a need for new services and an increasingly diverse client group. In order to contribute to the existing knowledge in the area of open access movement in libraries, this chapter discusses how the 21st century library provides a service that can open access to knowledge for the growth and development of communities they serve by highlighting the concept of open access and open content, roles of libraries in open access initiative as well as library collection development and open access. This chapter also sheds light on legal and ethical issues in open access and the future of open access in libraries.