This document discusses challenges related to curating and providing access to open access collections. It outlines the author's institution's response which involves curating and vetting open access resources using a rubric. Some things that are working well include continued ingestion and discoverability. Areas for improvement include increasing automation for metadata and tracking usage. Going forward, the author proposes fully integrating open access into digital library collections and exploring additional access points, while continuing to focus on metadata and tracking for open access resources.

1. No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Balancing Locally Curated Open Access Collections and Their Costs
Allyson Rodriguez, Strategic Collections Librarian
University of North Texas

2. Roadmap
• The world of open access
• Our response
• What’s working
• Areas for improvement
• In the future
Which way: A confusing road sign. CC Image courtesy of oatsy40 on Flickr

3. World of OA
• From SPARC (in 2012)
• 9,745 Open Access journals
• 81,780 Open Access articles published in 2012
• In Directory of Open Access Books (in August 2016)
• 5,193 Open Access books
• From 159 Publishers

4. The Paradox of Choice
• “…the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily
mean that more choice is better.”
• “…the growth of options and opportunities for choice
has three, related, unfortunate effects. It means that
decisions require more effort. It makes mistakes more
likely. It makes the psychological consequence of
mistakes more severe.”
- The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry
Schwartz

5. The Response
• Curate and Vet
• Open Access Cataloging
• Associated costs
Indexed a CC Image by kyz on Flickr

6. Curate
• Does it apply to our institution?
• Did we get a request for it?
Sifting., a CC by image from the jof on Flickr

7. Vet
• Collection Development Policy for Open Access and
Born-Digital Resources -
http://www.library.unt.edu/policies/collection-
development/oa-collection-development-policy
• Rubric

8. Resource Name: Date:
Excellent Adequate Insufficient
Quality (Review Process)
Stated peer or librarian review, prefer multiple
reviewers (for journals, etc.)
Peer or librarian review is noted but not described in
detail or the process is limited
No review processes are in place
Quality (Contact Information)
Contact information is provide for
author/publisher
Contact information for author or publisher is
general, outdated, or incomplete
No contact information is provided or is only available
through contact form
Quality (Information)
Information is logical and pertains to stated
subject of resource (look at titles, abstracts, any
other information)
Most (not all) information is pertient to the subject Subjects are varied and seemingly incoherent
Authority (Publisher)
Credentials of publisher are clearly and easily
identifiable; Preferred domains: .edu, .gov, .org, or
.net
Credentials of publisher are difficult to find, or do
not match subject very closely; Publisher has positive
reputation but not estabilshed longevity
Publisher credentials are not included or poor;
Publisher has limited or no positive reputation;
Authority (Author)
Credentials of author are clearly and easily
identifiable; Credentials scholarly in nature and
relevant to content
Credentials of author are difficult to find, or lacking
in some way
Author credentials are not included or irrelevant
Objectivity (Information)
Information provided is open to verification and
validation, process for this is stated;Information
provides for multiple perspectives and/or
addresses shortcomings of research
Information provided is open to verification and
validation in a limited fashion; Information provides
for some perspectives and may address
shortcomings of research but not completely
Information provided is not open to verification or
validation; Shortcomings of research are not
addresssed or multiple perspectives not allowed
Objectivity (Advertising) No or minimal advertising Moderate advertising is present
Heavy advertising is present and interferes with
information
Currency
Information is recently published relative to the
subject)
Information is generally published recently
Large gaps between publications; Information is out
of date
Currency (Frequency)
Publication dates are regular, clearly identified on
the resource, and adhered to
Limited larger gaps between publications than those
stated on the resource
Publication frequency is not stated or adhered to
Functionality (Software and
Registration)
No additional software is needed; No registration
is needed to access the resource
Minimal, if any, additional software is needed; No
registration is needed to access the resource
Extra software or plugins are necessary to view
information; Registration is necessary
Functionality (Viewing Options)
Resource has text-only viewing options, or options
for optimal viewing
Limited display options available or text-only is not
available
Limited or no display options available, limiting
usability of information
Functionality (Links) All citations and links are correct and functional Most citations links are correct and functional;
Multiple citations and links are incorrect or not
functioning

9. What’s Working
• Some Automation
• Continued Ingestion
• Discoverable!
• Liaisons and Experts

10. Areas for Improvement - Metadata
• Automation
• Not always robust
• Time and effort

11. Areas for improvement - Tracking
• No good way to track usage
• Return on investment
• Initiatives

12. Areas for improvement - Initiatives
• Pay to support Open Access
publication
• Records and metadata
Metadata is a
love note to the
future, a CC by
image by cea on
Flickr

13. Going Forward – Local Ingesting
• Digital Library
• Local copy
• Tracking!
• Cost

14. Going Forward – Multiple Access Points
• Fully Open Access included in
packages
• Extra access points
• Redundant
• Identification

15. Going Forward – Tracking
• Again

16. Wrap Up
Too much choice is bad
So Curate your collections (even OA)
Evaluate everything
Some automation is ok
Metadata and tracking of OA are areas of need
Coming soon: OA in the Digital Library!

17. Questions?
• allyson.rodriguez@unt.edu

18. References
• Rodriguez, A. (2016). OA resource rubric. Retrieved from UNT Digital Library
at
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc854098/?q=allyson%20rodr
iguez . Doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3491642.v2
• Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
• SPARC. (2016). Open access to scholarly and scientific research articles.
Retrieved from http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-
Open-Access-Factsheet.pdf