Workflow Development for an Institutional Repository in an Emerging Research Institution

Authors: Jeanne Hazzard,  Stephanie Towery

Abstract: INTRODUCTION This paper describes the process librarians in the Albert B. Alkek Library at Texas State University undertook to increase the amount of faculty publications in their institutional repository, known as the Digital Collections. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Digital Collections at Texas State University is built on a DSpace platform and serves as the location for electronic theses and dissertations, faculty publications, and other digital Texas State University materials. Despite having launched the service in 2005, the amount of faculty work added to the repository has never been at the levels initially hoped for on launch. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORKFLOW Taking a proactive and cooperative approach, a team of librarians developed and piloted a workflow, in which library staff would retain the already established protocol of gaining faculty permissions prior to uploading material while respecting publisher copyright policies. RESULTS Prior to the vita project, the repository archived 305 faculty publications total. Fifty-seven were added during the pilot, which represents an 18.5% increase. Of a total of 496 articles, seventeen titles were found in the blue category, which allows publisher pdfs to be archived. The majority of articles (233) were found in the green category, which allows either a pre- or a post-print copy of an article to be archived. One hundred ten of the identified titles were in the yellow and white journal categories, representing 22% of our total, and the team was able to archive only five of these. Finally, 16% (81) were not found in the SHERPA/ RoMEO database (color-coded beige). Only 18 of these articles were archived. ASSESSMENT We discovered that our faculty retain nearly none of their pre-print or post-print versions of their published articles, and so we are unable to archive those titles in the repository. Nearly 47% of the articles found were in green journals that allow only pre- or post-print copies. Most faculty were unable to produce versions of their work other than the publisher’s PDF, which many publishers restrict from upload into a repository.

Citation: Hazzard, J. & Towery, S., (2017). Workflow Development for an Institutional Repository in an Emerging Research Institution. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI:


Teaching Our Faculty: Developing Copyright and Scholarly Communication Outreach Programs

Authors: Jennifer Duncan, Susanne Clement, Betsy Rozum

Abstract: Although faculty are prolific producers and users of copyrighted works, they are often more concerned with ensuring that their articles are published than the terms of publication and how they can use the articles in their future teaching and research. However, once we started a conversation with faculty members about some of these issues, we discovered they were very interested in having the university provide them with the resources to establish a broad overview of the unforeseen ways copyright might be affecting their teaching and research. Unfortunately, many universities, have no copyright attorney on staff or unit devoted to copyright issues; this was certainly the case at USU. What is the role of the librarian in helping faculty when they clearly need, and even want, to understand copyright, but the university has not made available the appropriate resources?

Citation: Duncan, Jennifer; Clement, Susanne; and Rozum, Betty, “Teaching Our Faculty: Developing Copyright and Scholarly Communication Outreach Programs” (2013). Library Faculty & Staff Publications. Paper 117.


Source: Teaching Our Faculty: Developing Copyright and Scholarly Communication Outreach Programs

Write up! A Study of Copyright Information on Library-Published Journals

Author: Melanie Schlosser

Abstract: Libraries have a mission to educate users about copyright, and library publishing staff are often involved in that work. This article investigates a concrete point of intersection between the two areas – copyright statements on library-published journals.  Journals published by members of the Library Publishing Coalition were examined for open access status, type and placement of copyright information, copyright ownership, and open licensing.  Journals in the sample were overwhelmingly (93%) open access. 80% presented copyright information of some kind, but only 30% of those included it at both the journal and the article level. Open licensing was present in 38% of the journals, and the most common ownership scenario was the author retaining copyright while granting a nonexclusive license to the journal or publisher. 9% of the sample journals included two or more conflicting rights statements. 76% of the journals did not consistently provide accurate, easily-accessible rights information, and numerous problems were found with the use of open licensing, including conflicting licenses, incomplete licenses, and licenses not appearing at the article level.

Citation: Schlosser, M. (2016). Write up! A Study of Copyright Information on Library-Published Journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 4, eP2110. DOI:


It’s all the same to me!: Copyright, contracts, and publisher self-archiving policies

Author: Nancy Sims

Abstract: “Green” open access—sharing copies of published scholarship online via repositories, rather than in the place of original publication—can be an appealing option for scholarly authors. It’s largely within their own control, and also often the option with least personal financial cost. Many publishers have standing policies enabling green open access of some kind, but the specifics of these policies vary widely and can be quite confusing for authors and others trying to understand and comply.

Citation: Sims, N. (2015). It’s all the same to me!: Copyright, contracts, and publisher self-archiving policies. College & Research Libraries News, 76(11), 578-581.


Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics

Authors: Paula Stephan, Reinhilde Veugelers& Jian Wang

Abstract: There is a disconnect between the research that reviewers purport to admire and the research that they actually support. As participants on multiple review panels and scientific councils, we have heard many lament researchers’ reluctance to take risks. Yet we’ve seen the same panels eschew risk and rely on bibliometric indicators for assessments, despite widespread agreement that they are imperfect measures1–6.

The review panels we observed last year were using bibliometrics in much the same way as they did before the 2015 Leiden Manifesto4, the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which Nature is signing, and similar exhortations against their use. After all, bibliometric measures offer a convenient way to help evaluate a large number of proposals and papers.

Although journal impact factors (JIFs) were developed to assess journals and say little about any individual paper, reviewers routinely justify their evaluations on the basis of where candidates have published. Panel members judge applicants by Google Scholar results and use citation counts to score proposals for new research. This practice prevails even at agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC), which instructs reviewers not to look up bibliometric measures.

As economists who study science and innovation, we see engrained processes working against cherished goals. Scientists we interview routinely say that they dare not propose bold projects for funding in part because of expectations that they will produce a steady stream of papers in journals with high impact scores. The situation may be worse than assumed. Our analysis of 15 years’ worth of citation data suggests that common bibliometric measures relying on short-term windows undervalue risky research7.

How can we move beyond declarations and wean reviewers off bibliometric indicators that bias decisions against bold work?

Citation: Paula Stephan, Reinhilde Veugelers& Jian Wang. Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics : Nature News & Comment. Nature 544, 411–412 (doi:10.1038/544411a


Copyright and the Use of Images as Biodiversity Data

Authors: Willi Egloff, Donat Agosti, Puneet Kishor, David Patterson, Jeremy A. Miller

Abstract: Taxonomy is the discipline responsible for charting the world’s organismic diversity, understanding ancestor/descendant relationships, and organizing all species according to a unified taxonomic classification system. Taxonomists document the attributes (characters) of organisms, with emphasis on those can be used to distinguish species from each other. Character information is compiled in the scientific literature as text, tables, and images. The information is presented according to conventions that vary among taxonomic domains; such conventions facilitate comparison among similar species, even when descriptions are published by different authors. There is considerable uncertainty within the taxonomic community as to how to re-use images that were included in taxonomic publications, especially in regard to whether copyright applies. This article deals with the principles and application of copyright law, database protection, and protection against unfair competition, as applied to images. We conclude that copyright does not apply to most images in taxonomic literature because they are presented in a standardized way and lack the creativity that is required to qualify as ‘copyrightable works’. There are exceptions, such as wildlife photographs, drawings and artwork produced in a distinctive individual form and intended for other than comparative purposes (such as visual art). Further exceptions may apply to collections of images that qualify as a database in the sense of European database protection law. In a few European countries, there is legal protection for photographs that do not qualify as works in the usual sense of copyright. It follows that most images found in taxonomic literature can be re-used for research or many other purposes without seeking permission, regardless of any copyright declaration. In observance of ethical and scholarly standards, re-users are expected to cite the author and original source of any image that they use.

Citation: Willi Egloff, Donat Agosti, Puneet Kishor, David Patterson, Jeremy A. Miller,  2017. “Copyright and the Use of Images as Biodiversity Data” 


Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections: What’s “ours” isn’t really ours

Authors: Nancy Sims

Abstract:  Digitizing existing collections and making them available online facilitates public and scholarly access to the niftiness we have squirreled away in our archives and special collections. But providing only online access to collections is of limited value when visitors don’t know how they can make use of these materials. That is why there are many efforts underway in libraries and related cultural institutions to become more active in establishing and communicating this information to our visitors.

Citation: Sims, N. (2017). Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections: What’s “ours” isn’t really ours. College & Research Libraries News, 78(2), 79-82.


Collaborative Academic Library Digital Collections Post-Cambridge University Press, HathiTrust and Google Decisions on Fair Use

Author: Michelle M. Wu

Abstract: Academic libraries face numerous stressors as they seek to meet the needs of their users through technological advances while adhering to copyright laws. This paper seeks to explore one specific proposal to balance these interests, the impact of recent decisions on its viability, and the copyright challenges that remain after these decisions.

Citation: Wu, Michelle M. “Collaborative Academic Library Digital Collections Post-Cambridge University Press, HathiTrust and Google Decisions on Fair Use.” Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship 1.1 (2016).


Source: Collaborative Academic Library Digital Collections Post-Cambridge University Press, HathiTrust and Google Decisions on Fair Use | Wu | Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship

The Value of Copyright: A Publisher’s Perspective

Author: Harington, Robert

Abstract: Rick Anderson asked me recently to present a talk, as part of a panel, on the “Publisher’s View of Copyright”, at the upcoming Research to Reader Conference in London later this month. If you are going to stand up in front of an audience, it’s always best to know what you are talking about. While I have a general sense of what I think about the subject, and opinions to match, I thought it would be helpful to dig a little deeper, to make sure what I know is actually correct, and to try and find evidence and arguments that support what I am trying to say. First, a caveat: there is no one view of copyright that fits all publishers. The publisher of a poetry magazine will likely feel differently about aspects of copyright when compared to say the publisher of your local phone book — yes they do still exist. Indeed, even within scholarly publishing there is a range of attitudes towards copyright.

Citation: Harington, Robert. (2017). The Value of Copyright: A Publisher’s Perspective. Scholarly Kitchen.