From Nicole C. Eva and Tara A. Wiebe in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication:
“Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers.”
Continue reading here:
Source: Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories
PALNI has released a public white paper addressing our collaborative IR project.
PALNI’s Executive Director, Scholarly Communications Director, and Institutional Repository Task Force have examined closely the IR landscape and platform options for a cost-effective repository suitable for the Private Academic Library Network of Indiana (PALNI) consortium. As
a product of this investigation and by pursuing cooperative relationships with other consortia, PALNI has two projects using the platforms Hyku and Islandora. These are the two solutions we’ve deemed most viable and most closely matching our guiding vision and values. We envision the Islandora project will be ready for production in the FY19 year.
Read more here:
Source: PALNI IR White Paper
From Jill Cirasella and Polly Thistlethwaite in the Author’s Alliance Latest News:
For years, we have encouraged researchers at our institution, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, to consider the benefits—for others, themselves, and their fields of study—of making their scholarship available open access. In doing so, we have found allies, some already committed to open access and some newly swayed by our arguments.
But, like many librarians advocating openness, we have also met resistance—disinclination to make time to upload works to repositories, confusion about variations among publishers’ policies regarding authors’ rights, certainty that niche work has no broader audience, concern about the viability of scholarly societies in an open-access world, etc.
Source: Researching Rumors About Open Access Dissertations | Authors Alliance
We have opened the General Issue for Volume 7 of the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (JLSC), and have published 7 new articles. JLSC invites new submissions to the journal – please see the author guidelines for details.
- Strategies for Supporting OER Adoption through Faculty and Instructor Use of a Federated Search Tool (Talea Anderson and Chelsea Leachman)
- When a Repository Is Not Enough: Redesigning a Digital Ecosystem to Serve Scholarly Communication (Robin R. Sewell, Sarah Potvin, Pauline Melgoza, James Silas Creel, Jeremy T. Huff, Gregory T. Bailey, John Bondurant, Sean Buckner, Anton R. duPlessis, Lisa Furubotten, Julie A. Mosbo Ballestro, Ian W. Muise, and Brian J. Wright)
Brief Reviews of Books and Product
Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
From Heather Joseph via College & Research Libraries News (with thanks to The Idealis)
“Late last year, the news of Elsevier’s acquisition of bepress, the provider of the popular Digital Commons repository platform, sent a shockwave throughout the library community. Hundreds of institutions that use Digital Commons to support their open access repositories quite literally woke up to the news that their repository services are now owned and managed by a company that is well known for its obstruction of open access in the repository space.”
Read more here:
Source: Securing community-controlled infrastructure: SPARC’s plan of action | Joseph | College & Research Libraries News
From Catalano et al:
Objective – As academic libraries evolve to meet the changing needs of students in the digital age, the emphasis has shifted from the physical book collection to a suite of services incorporating innovations in teaching, technology, and social media, among others. Based on trends identified by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and other sources, the authors investigated the extent to which academic libraries have adopted 21st century library trends.
Methods – The authors examined the websites of 100 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries, their branches, and 160 randomly selected academic libraries to determine whether they adopted selected 21st century library trends.
Results – Results indicated that ARL member libraries were significantly more likely to adopt these trends, quite possibly due to their larger size and larger budgets.
Conclusion – This research can assist librarians, library directors, and other stakeholders in making the case for the adoption or avoidance of particular 21st century library trends, especially where considerable outlay of funds is necessary.
Read more here:
Source: View of An Analysis of Academic Libraries’ Participation in 21st Century Library Trends | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
From Roy et al:
This paper examines Open Access (OA) self archiving policies of different Open Access Repositories (OARs) affiliated to COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) as partner institutes. The process of scrutiny includes three major activities – selection of databases to consult; comparison and evaluation of Open Access policies of repositories listed in the selected databases and attached to COAR group; and critical examination of available self archiving policies of these OA repositories against a set of selected criteria. The above steps lead to reporting the following results: key findings have been identified and highlighted; common practices have been analyzed in relation to the focus of this paper; and a best practice benchmark has been suggested for popularizing and strengthening OARs as national research systems. This paper may help administrators, funding agencies, policy makers and professional librarians in devising institute-specific self archiving policies for their own organizations.
Read more here:
Source: Towards Open Access Self Archiving Policies: A Case Study of COAR | LIBER Quarterly
By Erin Faulder et al.:
The handbook provides support for both new and existing repository managers, comprising both recommended practices and specifically identified action steps that will allow them to track their progress and identify gaps. Each section of the handbook covers a different strategic area of repository management, standing largely on its own and linking to other sections when appropriate. Although there is no primary section order, we recommend starting with Defining Repository Scope and Service Planning.
The handbook specifically addresses principles and practices pertaining to digital repositories, where a digital repository can be defined as: a system, the purpose of which is to store, present, and preserve a collection of data for which the library provides services. That is, the term refers specifically to the application as opposed to the content (collections, objects and metadata) within.
Read more here:
Source: Cornell University Library Repository Principles and Strategies Handbook
From a panel discussion at the Library Publishing Forum:
Abstract: Since the acquisition of the Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) by Elsevier last summer, there has been much discussion online, in listserves, and elsewhere about what that development means for the future of open access and scholarly communications. The people most directly affected are the users of the bepress DigitalCommons repository hosting service. Some have recoiled in horror at the new ownership situation, others are waiting to see what happens next. This is a panel discussion by current users concerning what they see in the road ahead, including what they regard as essential services, possible options, functionality requirements, and necessary safeguards.
Read more here:
Source: “DigitalCommons Users Discuss the bepress Acquisition” by Paul Royster, Roger Weaver et al.