The semi-annual meeting of the InDiPres membership will be held on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm at the Indiana State Library, in Room 401. The meeting is open and all interested individuals are welcome to attend. At this meeting we will be electing new officers, reviewing proposed revisions to the membership agreement, celebrating our first anniversary, and taking a group membership photograph for promotional purposes.
In addition, Ms. Carly Dearborn, Digital Preservation and Electronic Records Archivist for Purdue University Libraries, has graciously agreed to give a talk titled: “Preservation on the Mind: Incorporating Digital Preservation into Daily Workflows,” that will focus on the small daily steps which make preservation easier.
Source: Home Page | InDiPres
You’re invited to join us for “OpenCon 2017 Live” to remotely participate in OpenCon 2017 in a meaningful way. Join us for a few hours, or a few days, from wherever you are to become an expert in Open Access, Open Data, and Open Education, build your network, and help advance progress.
Read more here:
Source: OpenCon 2017 Live – Participate Remotely in OpenCon
This webinar may have a Digital Commons slant to it, but it’s sure to be informative nonetheless in the area of faculty outreach and engagement.
In this webinar Maureen Schlangen, E-scholarship and Communications Manager at the University of Dayton, and Jane Wildermuth, Head, Digital Initiatives and Repository Services at Wright State University, will share how they have grown their library services by tailoring their outreach to specific faculty needs.
See link below to register for this free webinar.
Source: Help us Help You: Creating Faculty Champions with Library Services
From Madeline Cohen, of Lehman College/CUNY comes this concise and helpful overview of some essential schol comm resources. Abstract:
“Academic librarians are playing a greater role in scholarly communication at their
institutions. Scholarly communication has become a part of every academic librarian’s
work. In particular, the role of subject liaison librarian often includes responsibilities
related to advising discipline faculty on scholarly publishing, open access, institutional
repositories and copyright. Liaison librarians might take on these responsibilities without
having a firm grasp of the landscape of scholarly communication due to lack of
experience or education in this area. This article is a guide to the key issues and concepts
of scholarly communication for librarians new to this facet of academic librarianship. A
guide to readings and resources is offered for librarians to educate themselves quickly on
these basic issues.”
Source: Learning the Basics of Scholarly Communication
Last year at Butler University, I began the process of systematically reviewing the impact of our institutional repository platform, Digital Commons @ Butler. In addition to measures of total download rates and number of total objects deposited, a major focus of the assessment of the repository was the global impact of the repository in terms of international downloads (depth) and the diaspora of Butler produced content (breadth). Because of the small size of Butler, it’s highly beneficial when communicating to stakeholders to be able to indicate just how large the impact of our locally produced content can be when disseminated utilizing an open repository model. Because Butler utilizes the Bepress repository platform, there were several tools available that help communicating this information, including a googlemaps API powered World Readership Map that measures global readership in real time. This enables the timely and systematic communication of the global scope of the repository.
In Relation to What?!
These approaches to measuring the global impact of our repository services are highly beneficial to communicating to stakeholders the success of repository. Yet, there was still a burning question in my mind as I began this process: who are we successful in relation to? The Ranking Web of Repositories (RWR) tool, an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group belonging to the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain, provides us with the ability to quantify the overall success of our repository based on a series of criteria against other repositories nationally and worldwide.
On a whim, I decided to investigate this data last year just to see where Butler’s repository stacked up against other repositories in the world with regard to size (total number of objects), visibility (how findable is our repository content through major search engines), Rich Files (how many full text objects are available), and our visibility in GoogleScholar. It turns out that we were ranked 128 in the U.S. in 2015! This list included huge programs like Arxive.org. Needless to say, this metric provides a lot of incentive for us as an institution to prioritize our repository services because they indicate that even a small school like Butler can have a large impact and strengthen the global reputation of its researchers and the scholarship they produce. This year, the results were even more promising as we broke into the top 100 repositories in the U.S. at number 97, number 352 worldwide (See our 2016 ranking below).
The kind of broad analysis that this tool provides us is highly beneficial when telling the story of our scholarship. But competition against several schools that have far superior budgets isn’t the only justification for using this tool. It also provides us with a means of benchmarking our success in key performance areas as determined by the RWR. In the last year, due to this data we were able to strategically determine what aspects of our services we needed to focus on. For us, based on these rankings we were able to focus on growing our repository as the visibility of our platform is doing quite well. I did, however, expand my analysis of the rankings available through RWR to determine the strength of our rank against the repositories of our peer and aspirants and the large 1R schools in Indiana and in the last year, we were able to gain significant ground on many of our aspirant institutions.
Everyone Wins this Race
As I write this piece, I realize I run the risk of sounding smug about Butler’s success with its repository program. We were admittedly early adopters and considered this program a strategic priority perhaps even earlier than an institution our size necessarily needed to. However, even as I talk about rankings and “gaining ground” and “stacking up” against other schools, the real goal here is to demonstrate that even small schools have a role to play in the open dissemination of scholarly content and their libraries have a role to play in scholarly communication and the open exchange of information. The real power of a tool like RWR isn’t that we can rank ourselves against schools with bigger budgets than us or for us to hold our own success over the heads of similar institutions who don’t have the operating budget for a platform like Digital Commons. It’s the fact it gives us a tangible way to measure the ways in which we can all contribute to the open access movement. A small school with an open-source repository or a fledgling Digital Commons instance has access to the same benchmarking capacity that Cornell and Indiana University do and this allows us all to run the same race together: facilitate access to the research necessary for people, worldwide to succeed.
dh + lib recently announced the creation of RightsStatement.org:
The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) and Europeana announced the launch of RightsStatements.org, “a collaborative approach to rights statements that can be used to communicate the copyright status of cultural objects”
Kent Anderson has recently released his updated list of “Things Publishers Do”
Source: Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)
Here’s some background on the list:
The first version of this list was created back in the summer of 2012, at a time when publishers were being repeatedly challenged to prove they added value beyond managing peer review and some basic copy editing and formatting. The first post outlined 60 things publishers do. The post was revised again in 2013 to reflect 13 more things, bringing the total to 73. In 2014, it was updated once more, to add nine more things and update others, bringing the total number of things most publishers do to 82. Now, after more than a year since its last revision, here we are with a new post, adding yet more things to what publishers often do for authors, readers, and as part of their work.
It’s worth noting that we are adding an average of just more than 12 new items per year. While some of this is capturing things I failed to include in prior lists, some of these additions represent efforts and work that was once hardly noticeable but which has quickly grown. At this rate, we will be doing more than 200 things by 2025. How pushing more work into the publishing enterprise squares with reducing costs and increasing efficiency remains a conundrum.
The past few years have introduced a new level of infrastructure building – ORCID, CHORUS, and FundRef are just a few examples. Moving more of the publishing workflow and infrastructure online is also creating opportunities for entrepreneurs like Publons and Overleaf. Publishers are constantly monitoring, integrating, and advising these groups, a new level of activity with unclear payback for publishers, but clear added costs to the publishing endeavor.
Often, authors are the ones asserting that journal publishers do so little, which is understandable, as authors only experience a small part of the journal publishing process, and care about the editing and formatting bits the most, making those the most memorable. In fact, publishers’ service mentalities often include deliberately limiting the number of things authors have to worry about, which further limits their view of what it actually takes to publish a work and remain viable to publish the next one.
While I do not hope to downplay the realities of scholarly publisher profit margins in the face of stagnant and dwindling library budgets, it is vital to be aware of the role publishers play in the scholarly communication ecosystem. This list explicates the multitude of invaluable functions that publishers play in the dissemination, access, and discovery of scholarly literature. I consider some of the most relevant items on the list for librarians, especially those exploring the possibility of library and consortial based publishing, involved the publisher’s role in maintaining technologies and digital infrastructure.
Lever Press is an exciting new initiative that launched in late 2015:
Nearly forty member libraries of the Oberlin Group have committed to creating and funding a new, peer-reviewed, open access, digital-first pathway for scholarship in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
As of December 4, 2015, nearly 40 liberal arts college libraries have committed to contribute more than $1 million to the work of Lever Press over the next five years. Librarians and faculty members at these institutions will also comprise the press’s Oversight Committee and Editorial Board. Supported by these pledges, Lever Press aims to acquire, develop, produce and disseminate a total of 60 new open-access titles by the end of 2020.
–Lever Press website
This collaborative effort to bring library publishing to small and liberal arts institutions has drawn a lot of attention. In her column, Library Babel Fish, Barbara Fister spoke with several members of Lever Press’s Oversight committee, who outlined the ways in which Lever differentiated itself from other initiatives:
- The funding model doesn’t rely on authors scrounging up funds to support the publication of their work. Instead, libraries will do what they’ve always done – manage resources to support shared access to information – but will do so in a way that benefits everyone, not just their local communities.
- The participating libraries and institutions aren’t simply writing checks to support work organized and directed by a third party. Librarians and faculty at the participating institutions will be involved in setting the agenda and defining the identity and the future of the press.
- Connected to that, the press will have a liberal arts focus. What exactly that will mean still has to be determined by participants, but from the start the idea is to publish work with readers in mind, not just specialists and tenure committees.
- There is also space reserved for innovation. A significant percentage of the list will be devoted to expanding our definition of “book” by giving digital scholars a sturdy and sustainable platform for new kinds of publications, filling a gap in what publishers currently offer and giving our digital scholars opportunities to publish differently.
-“Reflections on Lever Press” by Barbara Fister, 1/14/16
And, finally, scholarly publishing blog The Scholarly Kitchen conducted an interview with Lever Press members, inquiring about the collaborative nature of the Press, as well as its view of open access and what their plans are for bringing the scholarly monograph to the 21st century:
I think it would be wrong to characterize Lever as just a publisher of scholarly monographs. We expect the Press’s products to appear in a range of forms, optimized to serve the particular ambitions of the authors. Like most university presses, University of Michigan Press receives a large number of monograph submissions from liberal arts college authors and these are often some of our best books, perhaps because of the clarity of expression that teaching small classes of bright undergraduates encourages. Lever is focused on the sorts of project that for various reasons faculty members don’t feel fit the university press model. Perhaps they will be projects with digital components that can’t easily be represented between two covers; maybe they will involve deep collaborations with student authors. I’m excited by the wealth of untapped publishing creativity we’re finding within the liberal arts college community.
-Charles Watkinson in “An Interview with Lever Press” by Rick Anderson, 1/25/16
Though Lever Press has its initial partners set, they say they will be looking for additional collaborators in the future, particularly if the 60 publications they’re planning in the next 5 years are successful. We’re all keeping an eye on this one to see how the model works and what we might be able to adopt for smaller consortia, too!
The results of OAPEN-UK’s Five-Year OA Monograph study was released in late January, 2016.
Source: OAPEN-UK Final Report: A Five-Year Study into Open Access Monograph Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences
Here’s an excerpt from the announcement:
Examining the attitudes and perceptions of funders, researchers, publishers, learned societies, universities and libraries, our study reiterated the deep strength of feeling and connectedness that each group has with the monograph, especially in terms of identity and reputation. It also found that while many think open access is a good idea in principle, there is uncertainty about how easy it would be to implement the necessary policies and systems to support OA monographs.
As major stakeholders in the sustainability of access to scholarly monographs, librarians, especially those from smaller institutions, should take particular interest in this report. With dwindling collections budgets coupled with the perennial increases in cost for monographs, open access is frequently championed as a viable alternative to the increasingly unsustainable model of traditional scholarly publishing. While OA is gaining traction in periodicals publishing (through a combination of Green and Gold models), monograph publishing is an entirely different animal. The OAPEN-UK report highlights some of the major challenges to Open Monograph implementation in the Humanities and Social Sciences. In addition to reporting on attitudes and perceptions of numerous stakeholders, the report details the implication of policies, systems and processes as well as business models for sustained OA Monograph creation and dissemination. The report also highlights the roles stakeholders (including librarians) can play in supporting the future of OA monographs. Through a combination of advocacy, experimentation with alternative collection models, and better understanding how OA can support student needs, academic librarians could aid in laying the groundwork for a more sustainable model for the creation and dissemination of scholarly monographs.
Source: Peripleo: a Tool for Exploring Heterogeneous Data through the Dimensions of Space and Time
By Rainer Simon, Leif Isaksen, Elton Barker, Pau de Soto Cañamares
Abstract from Authors:
“This article introduces Peripleo, a prototype spatiotemporal search and visualization tool. Peripleo enables users to explore the geographic, temporal and thematic composition of distributed digital collections in their entirety, and then to progressively filter and drill down to explore individual records. We provide an overview of Peripleo’s features, and present the underlying technical architecture. Furthermore, we discuss how datasets that differ vastly in terms of size, content type and theme can be made uniformly accessible through a set of lightweight metadata conventions we term “connectivity through common references”. Our current demo installation links approximately half a million records from 25 datasets. These datasets originate from a spectrum of sources, ranging from the small personal photo collection with 35 records, to the large institutional database with 134.000 objects. The product of research in the Andrew W. Mellon-funded Pelagios 3 project, Peripleo is Open Source software.”