JLSC Board Editorial 2018

Authors: Gail Clement, Nicky Agate, Samantha Searle, Danny Kingsley, Micah Vandegrift

Abstract: The current scholarly communication landscape is populated by a variety of actors and powered by an ever-increasing array of complementary and competitive systems for the production, publication, and distribution of scholarship. Recent years have also seen increasing numbers of proposals to recast these systems in ways that better align with the needs and values of the academy and its scholars. In this editorial, members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication consider the present environment and contemplate the future of academy-owned and -supported scholarly communication, as well as the role of libraries in that future.

Citation:Clement, G. et al., (2018). JLSC Board Editorial 2018. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 6 (1), p. None. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2261

View

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries

Authors: Lafferty-Hess, S., Rudder, J., Moira, D., Ivey, S., & Darragh, J.

Abstract
: A growing focus on sharing research data that meet certain standards, such as the FAIR guiding principles, has resulted in libraries increasingly developing and scaling up support for research data. As libraries consider what new data curation services they would like to provide as part of their repository programs, there are various questions that arise surrounding scalability, resource allocation, requisite expertise, and how to communicate these services to the research community. Data curation can involve a variety of tasks and activities. Some of these activities can be managed by systems, some require human intervention, and some require highly specialized domain or data type expertise.

At the 2017 Triangle Research Libraries Network Institute, staff from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University used the 47 data curation activities identified by the Data Curation Network project to create conceptual groupings of data curation activities. The results of this “thought-exercise” are discussed in this white paper. The purpose of this exercise was to provide more specificity around data curation within our individual contexts as a method to consistently discuss our current service models, identify gaps we would like to fill, and determine what is currently out of scope. We hope to foster an open and productive discussion throughout the larger academic library community about how we prioritize data curation activities as we face growing demand and limited resources.

Citation: Lafferty-Hess, S., Rudder, J., Moira, D., Ivey, S., & Darragh, J. (2018, May 29). Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries. http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZJ5PQ

Source: Conceptualizing Data Curation Activities Within Two Academic Libraries

View

Source: LIS Scholarship Archive

Harvesting the Academic Landscape: Streamlining the Ingestion of Professional Scholarship Metadata into the Institutional Repository

Author: Jonathan Bull and Teresa Auch Schultz

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Although librarians initially hoped institutional repositories (IRs) would grow through researcher self-archiving, practice shows that growth is much more likely through library-directed deposit. Libraries must then find efficient ways to ingest material into their IR to ensure growth and relevance. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Valparaiso University developed and implemented a workflow that was semiautomated to help cut down on the time needed to ingest articles into its IR, ValpoScholar. The workflow, which continues to be refined, makes use of practices and ideas used by other repositories to more efficiently collect metadata for items and upload them to the repository. NEXT STEPS The article discusses the pros and cons of this workflow and areas of ingesting that still need to be addressed, including adding full-text items, checking copyright policies, managing student staffing, and dealing with hurdles created by the repository’s software.

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Bull, J. & Schultz, T.A., (2018). “Harvesting the Academic Landscape: Streamlining the Ingestion of Professional Scholarship Metadata into the Institutional Repository.” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 6(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2201

View

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Author: Ruth Kitchin Tillman

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is.
METHODS: This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known. The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit.
RESULTS: Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month. More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit.
DISCUSSION: From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely.
CONCLUSION: The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

Source: Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Tillman, R.K., (2017). “Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories”. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2203

View

Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation

Authors: Julia A. Lovett, Andrée J Rathemacher, Diana Boukari, and Corey Lang

Abstract: The popularity of academic social networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu indicates that scholars want to share their work, yet for universities with Open Access (OA) policies, these sites may be competing with institutional repositories (IRs) for content. This article seeks to reveal researcher practices, attitudes, and motivations around uploading their work to ResearchGate and complying with an institutional OA Policy through a study of faculty at the University of Rhode Island (URI).

Citation: Lovett, J.A. et al., (2017). Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2183

View

Scholarly communications shouldn’t just be open, but non-profit too

Author: Jefferson Pooley

Abstract: Much of the rhetoric around the future of scholarly communication hinges on the “open” label. In light of Elsevier’s recent acquisition of bepress and the announcement that, owing to high fees, an established mathematics journal’s editorial team will split from its publisher to start an open access alternative, Jefferson Pooley argues that the scholarly communication ecosystem should aim not only to be open but non-profit too. The profit motive is fundamentally misaligned with core values of academic life, potentially corroding ideals like unfettered inquiry, knowledge-sharing, and cooperative progress. There are obstacles to forging a non-profit alternative, from sustainable funding to entrenched cynicism, but such a goal is worthy and within reach.

Citation: Pooley, Jefferson. “Scholarly communications shouldn’t just be open, but non-profit too.” LSE Impact Blog. August 15, 2017.

VIEW

Source: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/15/scholarly-communications-shouldnt-just-be-open-but-non-profit-too/

Beware the Trojan Horse: Elsevier’s repository pilot and our vision for IRs & Open Access

Authors: Ellen Finnie and Greg Eow

Abstract: In this post, the authors address the recent pilot linking the University of Florida’s institutional repository with Elsevier’s platform and offer an alternative vision for a healthy, global scholarly communication environment.

Citation: Finnie E and Eow G. (2017) Beware the Trojan Horse: Elsevier’s repository pilot and our vision for IRs & Open Access. In the Open. Retrieved from http://intheopen.net/2016/05/beware-the-trojan-horse-elseviers-repository-pilot-and-our-vision-for-irs-open-access/.

View

Populating Your Institutional Repository and Promoting Your Students: IRs and Undergraduate Research

AUTHORS: Betsy Rozum and Becky L. Thoms

ABSTRACT: Establishing institutional repositories (IRs) and encouraging supportive faculty participation can be daunting. Gaining access to scholarly public tions and other products that students produce, especially undergraduate researchers, can be an even more challenging task. Many IRs contain graduate theses and dissertations as well as undergraduate honors theses and the abstracts of work that students present at student research events or conferences. It is less common to find IRs whose compilers thoroughly collect student scholarship from all aspects of students’ research activities, which can demonstrate the academic involvement of both a university’s student population and the faculty who collaborate with their students (Barandiaran, Rozum, & Thoms, 2014). When an opportunity arose at Utah State University’s Merrill-Cazier Library to begin such a process, a partnership was born that benefits students, faculty members, and the library. This case study describes the evolution and benefits of that partnership.

CITATION: Rozum, B., & Thoms, B. (2016). Populating Your Institutional Repository and Promoting Your Students: IRs and Undergraduate Research. In Making Institutional Repositories Work (pp. 311–318). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

SOURCE: Populating Your Institutional Repository and Promoting Your Students: IRs and Undergraduate Research

Passing a Campus Open Access Policy

Author: Chealsye Bowley

Abstract: On March 31, Florida Gulf Coast University’s (FGCU) Faculty Senate passed an Open Access policy! The Open Access Archiving Policy ensures that future scholarly articles authored by FGCU faculty will be made freely available to the public by requiring faculty to deposit copies of their accepted manuscripts in the university’s repository, DigitalFGCU.

As Scholarly Communication Librarian, I worked with my supervisor, library administration, the university’s Provost, and Faculty Senate to write and pass the policy. Typically in the United States, Open Access policies are passed through the Faculty Senate as a faculty level policy rather than a “university policy” that requires a different approval process. Policies are usually proposed to a Faculty Senate team or committee, such as Faculty Affairs, and then proceeds to Faculty Senate for voting.

Although each institution will be different, in this blog post I’ll share some of the key decisions and learnings that allowed our team at FGCU to pass an Open Access Policy quickly.

Citation: Bowley, C. “Passing a Campus Open Access Policy.” OpenCon2017 Blog, May 05, 2017, www.opencon2017.org/passing_a_campus_open_access_policy.

View

Source: OpenCon2017 Blog