Scholarly Communication: A Changing Landscape, An OA Week 2011 Webinar

1,212 views

Published on

Presentation for SLA (Special Libraries Association) Open Access Week 2011 Webinar

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,212
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hello! And thanks to the SLA and Joe Kraus for this opportunity to speak with you today!In the final hour of this Open Access Week webinar, I’m going to give you a librarian’s perspective on how the changing scholarly communication landscape is affecting the system from access approaches to institutional practices to individual actions, and what you need to know to successfully cultivate continued change
  • As we hopefully are all aware, there have been changes on multiple fronts:AccessInstitutionsFundersPublishersAuthorsAll are either opting to change, or being asked to change, and the landscape is rapidly becoming one we do not always recognize.
  • So first up, changes in access…
  • It is important to understand that changes in access are generally enabled and driven by changes in technology, both in that which is used for distribution, but also that which is used for the *creation* of scholarship, such as that which is driving Digital Humanities initiatives.Just because a new model is born from new technology, it does not automatically operate outside of traditional models, particularly with respect to publishing practices. Journals and books are still valued and needed in our scholarly pursuits; they just might be electronic or interactive now, rather than bound and static. And explorations with new business models, such as shifting production cost-recovery away from subscriptions that some are implementing in open access publishing, are continuing to evolve.
  • Many of these new access models are driven by the concept of “open” which encompasses a lot of meanings:More open for both creators and usersGreater openness by way of removing access barriers, such as subscriptionsGranting rights up front to enable sharing and reuseAnd creating opportunities for new forms of technology-enabled scholarship and data mining to move forward
  • There are multiple open explorations within the broader ethos of openness, most of which should be familiar to you. The largest of these is obviously open access, both publishing and archiving. A derivative movement of open access is the public access requirements we are seeing from grant agencies. However, there is strong growth in these other, related movements and ultimately they all support and drive one another and our scholarship.
  • Open access is a viable, interesting model that might be the way of the future for scholarly publishing, but also might not, which I know is an odd claim to stake during an Open Access Week event! However, it must be noted that open access has not proven to be a panacea, and we should not pin our hopes and dreams for a better publishing landscape exclusively on a full switch to open access.That said, if OA were not viable, you would not see big publishers such as Springer buying OA publishers such as BioMed Central, or even offering hybrid models, which many do, even if the update on such models is low. OA also is not necessarily about saving money, as all publishing models involve costs. However, there are reasonable and less reasonable OA fees being charged; striking the balance is key. Interestingly, large publishers are often maligned for having healthy profit margins, but the same vehemence is not usually directed at PLoS, which has proven comparably profitable. It is a GOOD THING that PLoS is profitable!!
  • As noted earlier, the public access movement is beginning to gain traction with a number of grant funders, with the most notable US example being the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, which became a requirement in 2008. If you do not already have a formal support program in place for the NIH Policy, I encourage you to consider creating one. They don’t have to be all-inclusive to be successful. Before you start a program, you need to assess the extent of NIH funding at your institution, and determine what level of programming is warranted.Identifying the percentage of NIH funding and the number of departments or research centers receiving that funding is not too difficult, especially if you work with your institution’s office of research.You might discover you do not need to start a formal support program, but if you do, don’t start a program that cannot be sustained! It casts you and your library in a poor light if you launch a program with a scope beyond that which you are able to support. You also don’t want step on others’ toes or duplicate existing services! Before you launch a program, talk to colleagues in other departments to see what support is already offered. Offer to combine efforts or extend support if feasible.Whatever you do or do not do in terms of formal Policy support programs, remember that faculty researchers and graduate students, many of whom are our future faculty, are driven by the need to secure funding for their scholarship, and are therefore primed to do what is necessary to ensure compliance and future funding. If for no other reason, talking to your faculty about the Policy is a great way to open the conversation about other
  • The revisions to the National Science Foundation Data Management Plan requirements for funding applications that went into effect this past January bridge the open access and open data movements in that the interpretations by the various NSF directorates generally encompass date published with articles as well as the unpublished data generated throughout the research process.In order to effectively support the NSF data requirements, as well as those that are in place and likely coming from other funders, including the NIH, institution-wide infrastructure is desperately needed. Infrastructure is not snazzy, but it must be sophisticated to be effective. And given the lack of large data repositories existing independent of a single institution or funding agency, our faculty will need institutional support.Open data as a movement is big and getting bigger, and goes beyond published papers. Discovery is accelerated by better access to data, hence why funders are beginning to extend the public access commitment to data as well.We as librarians have skills in information architecture that we bring to the table, and as such, we must be involved in data support conversations that are happening at our institutions. And if we’ve learned anything from launching institutional repositories, which I’ll speak about in a few moments, we cannot simply build something and say “here it is”; rather, we need to go to researchers with hammer in hand and ask “where can I help?” The need for support is bigger than a single researcher, lab or department, and it will take all of us collaborating to establish effective support.
  • In response to these changes in access approaches and funder requirements, institutions are beginning to enact change on the university or college level, amplifying the actions of their individual faculty, primarily through launching institutional repositories and adopting policies to guide scholarship distribution
  • There are some great institutional repositories out there, but by and large, most are not experiencing strong growth unless there are staff dedicated to filling them for faculty.One of the biggest challenges to faculty contributing – beyond the ubiquitous time & inertia challenges – is that understanding copyright from the author’s perspective is fundamental to being able to retain and manage the rights necessary to contribute. Until we are all well-versed in basic rights management, we cannot hope to have robust IRs.We also need to think about capturing scholarship beyond published articles, as scholarship encompasses much, much more. Technical reports, white papers, gray literature, data sets, student research projects…all of these can and should be part of the corpus of scholarship we are looking to capture and showcase in an IR.Also need to think about how to handle retroactive collection building and permission barriers. What do you do if you cannot get permission to archive a previously published work? There are options, but they might not result in a full-text copy residing in your IR. Is that OK? Is it more important to have complete records, with full text, or complete representations of a faculty’s scholarship, with “empty” records? Need to answer for yourself, but if you want faculty buy-in, you need their thoughts.
  • Institutional policies that guide the distribution of scholarship are by and large governing that faculty adopt open access archiving practices. Such policies are being adopted at institutions that are both public & private, small & large. And not all policies are adopted at the institution-wide level, but sometimes by smaller groups of faculty who collectively wish to support and encourage one another to make their scholarship more accessible. Given the rise in adoption rates at US institutions, a new coalition, COAPI the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions, was formed this past summer to support one another in implementation practices and to serve as a collective voice in response to publisher reactions to such policies.Unfortunately, there are some publishers which have responded to the rising number of institutional open access policies in interesting, and restrictive ways. Someone ironically, and in evidence of many authors’ desires to make their scholarship available, regardless of whether institutions have archiving policies or even IRs, articles are being posted and shared despite publisher attempts to stop such action, and often without . And so far, publisher have been reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them by suing authors directly for illicit posting and sharing, although that day may yet come.Three examples are…Elsevier now asks institutions with “mandates” to negotiate separate policies for author archiving, seeming to penalize faculty at proactive institutions by taking away rights that have been granted to other Elsevier authors.ACS seems to have become more generous with their revised archiving policies, but more most intents and purposes, only with the submitted, pre-peer reviewed version. In a move opposite of Elsevier, ACS theoretically incentivizes institutions to adopt policies, as that is the only way the author’s final version can be archived. However, this seems to be an example of reverse psychology on the part of ACS, as they know that getting an institutional OA policy passed is not without great effort and persistence, so they are relinquishing very little control of their final product: few schools have policies, so those eligible for compliance are small, and few schools will move to adopt a policy just so one department’s faculty will be able to archive select publications.Taylor & Francis gives authors rights that are not stipulated in the publishing agreement that is signed by the author, rather references rights allowances that are explained in a separate document on their website. This document is not prominently linked and is UNDATED, big red flags.
  • So how do individual scholars make changes in response to the access, funder and institutional evolutions? Itall starts with managing copyright…
  • Despite getting all these great rights under copyright, too often authors simply give them all away, not understanding the full extent of what they are doingBecause copyright can only be given away in writing, and because copyright transfer agreements or publishing agreements are required by publishers, authors frequently sign the agreements verbatim, sadly often without really reading them, which limits their ability to reuse their own works and also to explore different access options for their scholarship that I noted earlier.However, not all rights have to be given away: copyright rights can be broken apart, and authors are not without some recourse: licensing, addenda and negotiation are all available options – BUT the author needs to know about them.Licensing enables the copyright holder, whether that is the author or the publisher, to license partial rights to the other party; Creative Commons licenses are one way, addenda, which are added to copyright transfer agreements and essentially revert rights to the author that she desires, are another way. Publishers don’t really like addenda, but at least is opening for negotiation
  • And negotiation is an important strategy for authors who wish to explore new forms of access beyond open access publishing. Contracts by their very nature are open to negotiation and publishing contracts are no differentAuthors need to think about how they MIGHT want to use their work in the future: class distribution, course packs, repository deposits, posting to personal websites, derivative works, compilations…however authors THINK they might use their work should affect what they agree to give away when publishingThe publishers know what they want to do with authors’ scholarship, so the authors should too!
  • So we’ve talked about changes in access, changes in institutional and individual actions to explore access changes, but where does that leave us, as librarians and advocates, on our campuses? We need to help create an environment that cultivates change
  • We must engage with our faculty authors. If we don’t talk to them about what they want and need, then we are not going to see long-term success in the interesting access explorations taking place. In many ways, faculty hold power to affect change in ways that we cannot.
  • And it isn’t just faculty with whom we should engage…Talk to your students!Talk to your research officers and administrators!Frustratingly, faculty sometimes listen to faculty from elsewhere better than an internal advocate – although not always…Be knowledgeable and give examples
  • We also cannot simply talk, talk, talk; we must also act. You cannot effective advocate for change and exploration if you are not also willing to try it yourself. Some of these strategies will work for you and some won’t…but you should try!
  • Pursuing open access, be it archiving or publishing, IR launching or policy adopting, or any of the other access explorations, should be understand as taking action, taking a stance on an issue, not an obligation.Any change to publishing practice must be understood within the whole. It should never jeopardize an author’s ability to publish, get tenure, or trump individual academic freedom. It should never be forced, but rather embraced.Real costs are involved, and it is disingenuous to not acknowledge them.Change is hard, and by default many are resistant, especially when the incentives that often drive faculty – promotion & tenure, recognition in the field, grant funding – are external rewards that are not directly tied to publishing decisionsStart where you can, be proactive and get to know people, assess the landscape and tailor and expand your services as needed. Read, read, read! Ask, ask, ask! Be in the know!The questions you are likely to get will be the tough, dirty details questions that cannot be readily answered by FAQ or other researchers. By the time the question comes to you, esp. in the beginning, the asker will likely already be frustrated or under pressure
  • Remember the process will be slow…yourgoal should be to have a conversation, not a convert!
  • Scholarly Communication: A Changing Landscape, An OA Week 2011 Webinar

    1. 1. SCHOLARLYCOMMUNICATION: ACHANGING LANDSCAPE Molly Keener Scholarly Communication Librarian Wake Forest University http://slidesha.re/KeenerOAWeek11 Open Access Week 2011
    2. 2. We’re not in Kansasanymore…
    3. 3. Access Changes
    4. 4. Why develop new models? A reaction to the restricted flow of information A reaction to traditional models of control Technology enables us to do things we couldn’t before Research doesn’t fit into traditional models
    5. 5. Commonalities Generally enabled by technology Works both inside and outside of traditional models Supported by a variety of business models
    6. 6. What do we mean by open? Open to contribution & participation Open & free to accessOpen to use & reuse with few or no restrictions Open to indexing & machine readable
    7. 7. Open movements Open access Public access Open data Open science Open humanities Open education Open books Open peer review…
    8. 8. Open Access Viable, interesting model More than just publishing – archiving, too! Profitability is a sign of success
    9. 9. NIH Public Access Policy Do you have NIH-funded faculty? How many? Grab publications for your IR if you can Search PubMed to estimate institutional compliance rates Great hook for talking to students Probably (hopefully!) old hat to faculty, but still important Formal support programs open doors for other conversations
    10. 10. NSF Data Management Plans Be involved in conversations on campus If not happening, start them Bigger than just the library or research office or IT or research department Say it with me: Infrastructure!!
    11. 11. Institutional Changes
    12. 12. Institutional Repositories Not all golden Copyright awareness & management key Break the bonds of “scholarship” Full, or empty?
    13. 13. Institutional policies Private & public, large & small Departmental, college/school, institutional Opt-in vs. opt-out Peer support: COAPI Publisher responses
    14. 14. Individual Changes
    15. 15. Who is the copyright holder? The creator is usually the initial copyright holder If two or more people jointly create a work, they are joint copyright holders, with equal rights With some exceptions, work created as a part of a persons employment is a "work made for hire" and the copyright belongs to the employer
    16. 16. What is copyright?Copyright is a bundle of rights: The right to reproduce the work The right to distribute the work The right to prepare derivative works The right to perform the work The right to display the work The right to license any of the above to third parties
    17. 17. How do we get copyright? Copyright exists from the moment of creation, and lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. You used to need a little c in a circle, and to register your work with the copyright office, but you don’t anymore. Copyright just happens.
    18. 18. Managing copyright Copyright can be transferred only in writing Licensing allows specific rights to be retained:  Authors keep copyright and license other rights (e.g., first publication)  Publishers take copyright and license rights back (e.g., reproduction, derivatives) Addenda can be added to publication agreements to open the door for negotiating rights retention Open Access publishers usually do not require full transfer of copyright
    19. 19. Negotiation If you don’t ask, you don’t get You don’t always get, but it doesn’t hurt to ask Think about what you need Read the agreement Consider addenda Work with your editor or publisherKnow what you want to accomplish…thepublishers do!
    20. 20. Cultivating Change
    21. 21. Why engage with faculty? Because they are the producers and the consumers of the products of scholarly communication Because they edit journals, sit on editorial boards, provide peer review, and are officers of scholarly societies Because they are the movers behind many new models of scholarship (often because of their own frustrations with the traditional model) Because they can make change in ways that libraries struggle to do on their own
    22. 22. Let’s engage!Discuss scholarly Engage with the Bringcommunication research office(s) facultyissues (especially on campus about advocatesauthor rights) with funder open from othergraduate access policies. campusesstudents and to speak.work with your Share knowledge ofGraduate copyright, legislativeCollege. Give faculty examples of issues, and other changes and new models current events that from other similar may have direct disciplines. impact.
    23. 23. What else can we do? Include scholarly communication in subject librarians jobs & service models Negotiate for OA archiving rights when publishing Consider supporting OA author fees with a campus fund Educate faculty about copyright and author rights Have an institutional repository? Get more people involved – catalogers, subject librarians, etc. Provide technical and organizational infrastructure for publishing journals and other content
    24. 24. Take home points An action, not an obligation Be prepared for misinformation Know campus culture Be curious!
    25. 25. Attribution & AccessSlide 2: “Kalvesta, KS Tornato” http://www.flickr.com/photos/98224963@N00/3464638770/Slide 7: “Hope” http://www.flickr.com/photos/crystalina/6327766/Slide 24: “Curiosity” http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiliodelprado/225161313/Slide 25: “Slow Down…You Clown!!” http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboyke/2668411239/This work is partially adapted from works originally created for the ACRL ScholarlyCommunication 101 Road Show, and was last updated on October 24, 2011 by Molly Keener.It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 UnitedStates License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/.Molly Keenerkeenerm [at] wfu.eduhttp://slidesha.re/KeenerOAWeek11

    ×