Category: Open Access

Reasons to Open Source Your Syllabus – Chronicle of Higher Education

From Anastasia Salter via the Chronicle of Higher Education:

This semester I’m teaching a new graduate course prep. I always enjoy putting together a new syllabus, but graduate courses are particularly exciting: I always have more things I want to teach than can possibly fit into a semester. During my summer planning, I read and reread articles and gather possible materials, and consult the best reference of all: everybody else’s syllabus.


Read more here:

Source: Reasons to Open Source Your Syllabus

Brazil Adopts Open Licensing in National Textbook Program – SPARC

From Nicole Allen and SPARC:

Brazil has taken a significant step toward expanding public access to publicly funded educational resources by incorporating open licensing into its national textbook program—one of the largest educational book purchasing programs in the world.

Read more here:

Source: Brazil Adopts Open Licensing in National Textbook Program – SPARC

On passing an open access policy at Florida State University – CR&L News

From Devin Soper via College & Research Libraries News’ Scholarly Communication Feature:

In February 2016, the Florida State University (FSU) Faculty Senate passed an institutional Open Access (OA) Policy by unanimous vote, following the lead of many public and private universities across the United States. This was the culmination of many years of outreach and advocacy by OA champions at FSU, with a diverse, talented team of faculty and librarians making significant contributions along the way.

Read more here:

Source: On passing an open access policy at Florida State University

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication Volume 5, General Issue

Lots of great articles from the new issue of JLSC.  Here is the table of contents:


Research Articles

Practice Articles

Theory Articles


Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future – The Scholarly Kitchen

From Alice Meadows via Scholarly Kitchen in honor of Peer Review Week:


Peer review of journals has been evolving ever since it was first introduced in the seventeenth century. Today there are a multitude of peer review processes, many different flavors of review, and a wealth of new tools and services for editors and reviewers. We asked experts from three very different organizations, each with a strong commitment to peer review, to give us their thoughts on how it’s evolved in their organizations and the communities they serve, how it works today, and what it might look like in future.

Read more here:

Source: Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future

OpenCon 2017 Live – Participate Remotely in OpenCon

From OpenCon:

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

The 2.5% Commitment – IUPUI Scholarworks

From David Lewis at IUPUI:

This article argues that academic libraries should commit 2.5% of their total budgets to organizations and projects that contribute to the common digital infrastructure need to support the open scholarly commons. This level of contribution is necessary if the needed infrastructure is to be put in place. Establishing this level of contribution as the expected norm will help to create the incentives necessary for individual libraries to make contributions at this level.

Read here:
Source: The 2.5% Commitment

Ranking Web of Repositories: How Does a Liberal Arts School Stack Up?

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 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

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) and Europeana announced the launch of, “a collaborative approach to rights statements that can be used to communicate the copyright status of cultural objects”