Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle

914 views

Published on

Presentation on open access and institutional repositories for the MBMH Seminar (Mount Holyoke College, Brandeis University, and Middlebury College)

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
914
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Open access to journals – scholarly literature – and will focus on the US and lean more toward the humanities, though you really can’t talk about OA without mentioning the sciencesNot going to cover copyright issues, digital rights management, technological protection measures (TPM), Google Book Settlement, open education movement (educational content that is available on the World Wide Web free of charge) though I did include some sources on these issues in my complete bibliography, which will be posted to the blog
  • Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle

    1. 1. Exploring Digital Scholarship <br />Improving Access to Scholarly ResearchAdding more fruits and veggies to the Internet<br />Leigh Mantle, RIS <br />Mount Holyoke College<br />
    2. 2. Fruits & Veggies<br />Institutional Repositories <br />Open Access Movement<br />Peer Review & Impact Factors<br />Archivists, Librarians & Instructional Technologists<br />Discovery Tools<br />Breaking Down Barriers to [Libraries’] Content<br />
    3. 3. Defining Open Access<br />“Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.”<br />Types: <br />Green = OA Archives or Repositories <br /> Gold = OA Journals <br />Gratis = removal of price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) <br />Libre = removal of price barriers and at least some permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions)<br /> ~ Peter Suber, SPARC<br />
    4. 4. The BBB<br />Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities<br /><ul><li> The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship
    5. 5. Users have the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
    6. 6. Deposits the works shortly after publication
    7. 7. Provides long-term archiving </li></ul>Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)<br />Self-archiving (deposit) <br />Peer-reviewed journal literature<br />Free availability on the public Internet<br />All users can freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts<br />All users can use the texts for any lawful purpose<br />No financial, legal, or technical barriers exist<br />Author holds copyright <br />Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing<br /><ul><li> All users have free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access
    8. 8. All users have a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit, and display publicly
    9. 9. Deposits the works shortly after publication
    10. 10. Provides long-term archiving
    11. 11. Author holds copyright </li></ul>~ Journal of Scholarly Publishing & SPARC Open Access Newsletter<br />
    12. 12. 5 Myths of Open Access<br />OA journals are free <br />OA publishing weakens or undermines peer review <br />OA means an article is not copyrighted<br /> OA will put journals out of business, especially smaller humanities journals published by scholarly societies and university presses<br /> Crisis in scholarly publishing does not apply to humanities…it is a problem caused primarily by the inflation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine (STEM) journals<br />
    13. 13. Polling<br /> &quot;Scholars like to complain about the quality of information on the Internet, but they should also work actively to ensure that the best of historical writing is available online to the widest possible audience.“<br /> ~ Roy Rosenzweig Director, <br /> Center for History and New Media George Mason University<br />Do you support the Open Access Movement?<br /> Do you support libraries / our profession being involved in the open access movement?<br />
    14. 14. Polling <br /> “I now believe that having public access to most scholarly communications is inevitable,” said. “Faculty are coming to understand, finally, that this has to happen if they’re going to have the most scholarly opportunities to get things done.”<br />~ David Shulenburger, Vice President for Academic Affairs , <br /> Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, October 14, 2009<br />How would you rate your faculty&apos;s interest in open access?<br />How would you rate your institution&apos;s interest in open access?<br />
    15. 15. Open Access Policy / Harvard<br />Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Law passed February 2008<br />Harvard policy was adopted by the faculty itself and the vote was unanimous<br />“Faculty members will retain copyright in their articles, and provide an electronic version to the University together with a license to make them available in an open access repository.”<br />The policy will allow Harvard authors to publish in any journal that permits posting online after publication. [“Two-thirds of pay-access journals allow such posting in online repositories” ~Peter Suber]<br /> Opt Out Option: &quot;The Dean or the Dean’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need.&quot;  <br /> &quot;It shifts the default so Harvard faculty must make their work openly available unless they opt out. The default at most universities is the other way around: you have to choose open access and arrange for all the provisions.” ~ Peter Suber<br /> ~HarvardNews<br />
    16. 16. Open Access Policy / University of Maryland (UM) <br /><ul><li>Resolution in Support of Open Access – FAILED April 2009</li></ul> Timing for presenting resolution to Faculty Affairs Committee due to NIH Public Access Policy and “general faculty dissatisfaction following three consecutive years of journal cancellations.” <br />Lessons Learned:<br /><ul><li> Separate “green” from “gold” in discussions
    17. 17. Do not assume faculty have knowledge of the concept and aims of open access or that they accept “scholarly communication” is in crisis.
    18. 18. Start tailored conversations with individual academic departments
    19. 19. Be flexible to allow for disciplinary differences
    20. 20. Focus on author’s rights </li></ul> ~ College & Research Libraries News <br />
    21. 21. Actions<br />Open Access Week <br />Publish an open access journal at your institution<br />Host seminars on OA considerations, i.e. getting published in OA’s journals and addressing peer review & copyright concerns<br />Develop cheat sheet for faculty and administrators<br /> Work together on collaborative projects<br />- i.e. IRs, applications, etc<br />Add DOAJ Journals to the library catalog and <br /> other discovery tools<br /> MBMH Seminar Brainstorm…<br />
    22. 22. Collaboration<br />Open Archives Initiative<br />International chapter-based student organization that promotes the public interest in intellectual property and information & communications technology policy.<br />Right to Research Coalition<br />SPARC, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Research Coalition [ARL]<br />Resource for faculty and librarian action to reclaim scholarly communication [ARL, ACRL, and SPARC]<br />PLoS, the Public Library of Science, a nonprofit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making medical and scientific research publicly searchable and accessible. Publishes 7 online peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.<br />
    23. 23. Peer Review <br />“Peer review will be a more productive, more helpful, more transparent, and more effective process if conducted in the open.” <br /> ~ Media studies scholar Kathleen Fitzpatrick<br /> Biology Direct, open access journal<br />Reviewers’ reports are public creating an open peer review process<br />Aim to increase the responsibility of the referees and eliminate sources of abuse in the refereeing process<br /> Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, open access journal <br />Rapid review process so papers are made available immediately <br />Interactive public discussion<br />Feedback is used to shape the final version of the paper<br /> ArXiv, pre-print archive for scientific papers<br />Endorsement process<br />Facebook application (myarxiv)<br />Tweprints, website collects the tweets that mention papers from the arXiv<br />Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <br />All entries are refereed by the Editorial Board (over 1,000 entries & continuously updated)<br />“Dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research”<br />Endowment<br /> ~ Create Change and Planned Obsolescence <br />
    24. 24. Impact Factors<br /> Citebase, (beta) an online tool that looks on the fly at how often individual papers are downloaded and cited.<br /> Faculty of 1000 uses a stable of thousands of specialists to rate the most important new papers in biology and medicine they read each month from some 800 journals. <br /> Eigenfactor “ranking and mapping scientific knowledge” Includes the journal price in its calculation; bridges discipline gaps; adjusts for citation pattern differences across disciplines (which ISI does not); assesses impact based on 5 years of data (as compared with ISI’s 2); and it is free. <br /> Hirsch’s H Index It can be applied to journal, author, or group, and assesses quality as well as quantity. In comparison with the ISI Impact factor, The h index corrects for highly cited papers not in highly cited journals. The h-index is based on a scientist’s most cited papers and the number of citations to their papers in other people’s publications. <br /> Publish or Perish, open source tool that calculates the h index using Google Scholar.<br />~ Scholarly Publication – MIT Libraries<br />
    25. 25. Defining Institutional Repositories (IRs)<br /> “The Open Archival Information Systems (OAIS) Model:<br />ingest (methods to define, describe, document, and authorize the transfer of digital files); <br />data management (the capture, storage, and analysis of metadata); <br />archival storage (infrastructure to protect the integrity of the files at the byte level); <br />access (provided to the user through queries, retrieval, and viewing, or to other applications or archival systems).” <br /> ~ “What We Talk About When We Talk About Repositories” RUSQ, November 2009<br /> Mike Furlough, Guest Columnist<br />
    26. 26. Avoiding the Roach Motel <br /> “MIT’s Institutional Repository had international press coverage, but they had to hire a marketing consultant to get their own faculty to use it.”<br />~ Susan Gibbons, ALA Conference 2005<br /> “We can’t assume we know best, or the library will end up running a repository, i.e., ‘a place in which a dead body is deposited; a vault or sepulchre.’” <br />~ Johanna Drucker, Chronicle of Higher Education<br /> “The success of repositories is connected to the services they can provide to faculty.”<br />~ 2008 SPARC Digital Repositories Meeting<br />
    27. 27. DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard) <br />University-wide, open-access repository <br />Launched 9.1.2009<br />Features: <br />Profiles, a research social networking site, which provides a comprehensive view of a researcher&apos;s publications and connections within the University’s research community.<br />Automated embargo lift dates, so that a work can be deposited &quot;dark&quot; and then automatically switch to open access once a publisher&apos;s self-archiving embargo has expired. <br />PDF header page: when a user downloads a full-text item, DASH generates a header page for the document, giving its provenance and relevant terms of use.<br />
    28. 28. UR ResearchUniversity of Rochester<br />
    29. 29. eScholarshipUniversity of California<br />
    30. 30. Expanding IRs Contents <br />
    31. 31. Facebook for Scientists<br />
    32. 32. Discovery Tools <br />Libraries’ websites<br />Directory of Open Access Repositories (Open DOAR)<br />Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)<br />Search engines <br />Google Scholar<br />Windows Live Academic<br />CiteSeer<br /> OAIster database <br />Google Custom Search Engine<br />MBMH Seminar Brainstorm…<br /> ~ Stonewall Climbing Gym, Texas<br />
    33. 33. Chewable Vitamins <br />An Unsustainable Model<br />Who owns the content? (Harry Potter / Goblin Model)<br /> “The price of subscriptions to scholarly journals has increased over 260% in the past 20 years” <br />~Right to Research / SPARC<br /> “The acquisition of scholarly journals ‘one of the most daunting challenges that research universities face.’” <br />~ University of Georgia Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost , September 2008<br /> 20th Century Business Model = managing products & output of research and scholarship / <br /> 21st Century Business Model = facilitating the process of scholarship, teaching, & research that result in those products <br />~ Council on Library and Information Resources, 2008<br />Support for the Research Process: An Academic Library Manifesto (RLG Research Information Management Interest Group / OCLC)<br /><ul><li> New services to ease researchers’ frustration and difficulty
    34. 34. Embed library content, services, and staff within researchers’ regular workflows
    35. 35. Discovery of content will happen outside of libraries – but libraries are uniquely suited to providing the organization and metadata that make content discoverable
    36. 36. Offer alternative scholarly publishing and dissemination platforms that are integrated with appropriate repositories and preservation services</li></li></ul><li>Bibliography<br />Open Access:<br />Chen, Chuanfu, Qiong Tang, Xuan Huang, Zhiqiang Wu, Haiying Hua, Yuan Yu, and Song Chen. “An Assessment of the Completeness of Scholarly Information on the Internet.” College & Research Libraries 70. 4 (2009): 386-401. Print.<br />Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy.Futureofthebook.org. 2009. Web. 25.Nov.2009.<br />Hackman, Tim. “What’s the opposite of a pyrrhic victory? Lessons Learned from an Open Access Defeat.” College & Research Libraries News 70.9 (2009): 518-521. Print.<br />Palmer, Kristi L., Emily Dill, and Charlene Christie. “Where There’s a Will There’s a Way?: Survey of Academic Librarian Attitudes about Open Access.” College & Research Libraries 70.4 (2009): 315-335. Print.<br />Shieber, Stuart. “Are the Harvard Open-Access Policies Unfair to Publishers?” 9.June.2009. The Occasional Pamphlet. Web. 20.Oct. 2009.<br />Suber, Peter. Open Access News. Web. 12.Oct. 2009.<br />Willinsky, John. The access principle: the case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2006. Print. <br />
    37. 37. Bibliography<br />Institutional Repositories:<br />Albanese, Andrew Richard. “Institutional Repositories: Thinking Beyond the Box. Repositories leapt into the national spotlight in 2008. Now what?” Library Journal. 1.March.2009. Web. 20.Oct.2009.<br />Basefsky, Stuart . 2009. &quot;The End of Institutional Repositories & the Beginning of Social Academic Research Service: An Enhanced Role For Libraries&quot; Research on Institutional Repositories (Irs): n. pag. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.<br />Billings, Marilyn S. &quot;Changing Scholarly Communications and the Role of an Institutional Repository in the Digital Landscape&quot; University of Maine. Orono, ME. Feb. 2008. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.<br />Eschenfelder, Kristin R. “Every Library’s nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources.” College and Research Libraries 69.3 (2008): 205-223. Print.<br />Foster, Nancy Fried and Susan Gibbons. “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 11 .1 (2005): n. pag. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.<br />Jantz, Ronald and Myoung C. Wilson. “Institutional Repositories: Faculty Deposits, Marketing, and the Reform of Scholarly Communication.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34.3 (2008): 186-195. Science Direct. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.<br />Mower, Allyson and Lisa Chaufty. “Do Something No One Has Imagined: The 2008 SPARC Digital Repositories Meeting. ” College & Research Libraries News 70.3 (2009): 158-160. Print.<br />Salo, Dorothea. &quot;Innkeeper at the Roach Motel.&quot; Library Trends 57:2 (2008). Web. 20.Oct.2009.<br />The Research Library’s Role in Digital Repository Services: Final Report of the ARL Digital Repository Issues Task Force.  January 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.<br />Van de Sompel, Herbert, John Erickson, Sandy Payette, Carl Lagoze, and Simeon Warner. “Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System that Scholars Deserve.” D-Lib Magazine 10 .9 (2004): n. pag. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.<br />Walters, Tyler. “Changes in Scholarly Communication: What Repository Programs Can Do for Faculty.”University System of Georgia Faculty Seminar on Scholarly Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology. 6. March.2009. Lecture.<br />

    ×