Suchergebnisse

This presentation provides an overview of the current landscape in open access the talk starts with some history and then considers the current state of open access and looks at the bigger landscape, and considers the political situation, the new open narrative and the challenges of implementing Open Research.

Did you hear the one about how Economics researchers surveyed said they would be prepared to give a quarter of a thumb to get published in a particular journal? It would be funny if it were not true. What has happened to science? Perverse incentives are causing an avalanche of problems in science, not least the reproducibility crisis. Things are so bad the UK Government has started an enquiry into research integrity. This talk will look at the reward structure in science, how it works and the issues it is causing. Opening up all aspects of the scientific process and increasing transparency will not only improve the veracity of the scientific record but will also allow reward where it is due.

Coming along to this workshop will be a good start. After a quick overview of open access generally and the current policy landscape, the session will give a run-down of five recent developments in this space: April 2017 is the start of the last year of the five year RCUK Open Access Policy transition period - what is next given the proposed reconfiguration of the research councils? In December 2016, most UK universities signed a five year subscription deal with Elsevier. The open access side of the deal is still being finalised. Some countries have signed different deals, others have not signed at all. What does this mean for the UK and a possible "Plan B"? The UK Scholarly Communications Licence (UKSCL) is due to be launched soon and will be active in the first-mover universities in September 2017. What does this mean and what are the latest issues being raised with the UKSCL? Submissions to the UK Government enquiry into Research Integrity have just closed. What relevance does Research Integrity have to open access? And what does this mean for libraries? The Wellcome Trust will be invoking their 'publisher white list' as of April 2017, at the same time they have launched the Wellcome Open Research platform, which has also recently been adopted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. What does this direct challenge to publishers' dominance mean for libraries? There will be time to have a conversation in small groups about what these developments might mean for your institution before we share our ideas and discussions back with the group.

Payment for publication is an increasingly prevalent component of the scholarly publishing landscape, and librarians have a professional requirement to be aware of the current situation. This paper explores this phenomenon, including an analysis of what is being charged for publication. Comparisons between the different types of open access publishing, in fully open access and in hybrid journals, show the considerably higher costs of hybrid open access. Despite this discrepancy there remain issues with the discoverability of some hybrid open access articles. Payment for publication is changing the funding base for scholarly publication therefore broadening the administrative areas responsible for management of the system. New relationships between players across the sector need to be developed and fostered. To participate in this changing landscape librarians need a knowledge of the source of institutional and government funds for article processing charges and these funding bodies' approaches to funding hybrid. New offerings from publishers, such as membership schemes and mega journals further complicate the situation, not helped by challenges in obtaining data about what is being spent in this area. This increasingly complex situation potentially expands the role of libraries within institutions into the future, which is preferable to becoming irrelevant.

Payment for publication is an increasingly prevalent component of the scholarly publishing landscape, and librarians have a professional requirement to be aware of the current situation. This paper explores this phenomenon, including an analysis of what is being charged for publication. Comparisons between the different types of open access publishing, in fully open access and in hybrid journals, show the considerably higher costs of hybrid open access. Despite this discrepancy there remain issues with the discoverability of some hybrid open access articles. Payment for publication is changing the funding base for scholarly publication therefore broadening the administrative areas responsible for management of the system. New relationships between players across the sector need to be developed and fostered. To participate in this changing landscape librarians need a knowledge of the source of institutional and government funds for article processing charges and these funding bodies' approaches to funding hybrid. New offerings from publishers, such as membership schemes and mega journals further complicate the situation, not helped by challenges in obtaining data about what is being spent in this area. This increasingly complex situation potentially expands the role of libraries within institutions into the future, which is preferable to becoming irrelevant.

Why are policies useful? Policies supporting OA indicate it is a priority for the institution. This paper lists a few issues to consider when preparing policies: 1. Find out how policies and the executive committee structure works. 2. Developing policies takes a long time and involves many aspects of the university community. 3. Do you need an executive member to champion you? 4. Do you have a mandate or are you encouraging? The paper also provides some useful links.

Serial prices are skyrocketing, the push to publish more intensifies, the government is requiring universities to comply with the RQF and we are all supposed to make everything more accessible. It seems impossible, but there are new ways of publishing which address all of these problems - if the academic community only knew about them. Danny Kingsley is a PhD student at the ANU undertaking research into the move towards open access scholarly communication. Part of her empirical work has involved the UNSW academic community. This talk will give an overview of the open access movement, discuss institutional repositories and how they can help academics, universities and the open access movement. An early description of empirical findings to date will also be included. The talk should appeal to librarians, institutional repository managers, the research office and academic staff. This talk was given as an Ad Hoc Series seminar at UNSW on 13 April 2007.

Australia has enjoyed governmental support for open access for approximately a decade. This paper provides a brief overview of the infrastructure now in place as a result, including widespread repositories and mandates at institutional and funding levels. In addition, the funding process for Australian universities means citation information for all research output has been collected for many years. This offers a unique test case for attempting to determine whether good infrastructure support results in a higher uptake of open access. The difficulties in establishing the percentage of research which is available open access are explored. While this means it is not possible to answer the question definitively, suggestions are made for possible future research.

EResearch is more than a buzzword. The creation of a special term to represent new and different approaches to research in the digital environment has implications for the provision of the infrastructure to support it. There are three players in this arena: the researchers themselves, the administrators who have overall responsibility for developing and managing infrastructure, and the government as the primary funder of Australian universities. APSR has recently surveyed select senior university administrators (Deputy-Vice- Chancellors, Research, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Information and University Librarians or their equivalent) seeking their views on this changing landscape. This paper looks at their responses as they contemplate what eResearch means for their universities and their institutional readiness and capability to respond. It also looks at the development of institutional repositories in this environment and the challenges which they face.

This paper provides the first full description of the status of Australian institutional repositories. Australia presents an interesting case because of the government's support of institutional repositories and open access. A survey of all 39 Australian universities conducted in September 2008 shows that 32 institutions have active repositories and by end of 2009, 37 should have repositories. The total number of open access items has risen dramatically since January 2006. Five institutions reported they have an institution-wide open access mandate, and eight are planning to implement one. Only 20 universities have funding for their repository staff and 24 universities have funding for their repository platform, either as ongoing recurrent budgeting or absorbed into their institutions' budgets. The remaining are still project funded. The platform most frequently used for Australian repositories is Fedora with Vital. Most of the remaining sites use Eprints or DSpace.

This paper provides the first full description of the status of Australian institutional repositories. Australia presents an interesting case because of the government's support of institutional repositories and open access. A survey of all 39 Australian universities conducted in September 2008 shows that 32 institutions have active repositories and by end of 2009, 37 should have repositories. The total number of open access items has risen dramatically since January 2006. Five institutions reported they have an institution-wide open access mandate, and eight are planning to implement one. Only 20 universities have funding for their repository staff and 24 universities have funding for their repository platform, either as ongoing recurrent budgeting or absorbed into their institutions' budgets. The remaining are still project funded. The platform most frequently used for Australian repositories is Fedora with Vital. Most of the remaining sites use Eprints or DSpace.

This paper provides the first full description of the status of Australian institutional repositories. Australia presents an interesting case because of the government's support of institutional repositories and open access. A survey of all 39 Australian universities conducted in September 2008 shows that 32 institutions have active repositories and by end of 2009, 37 should have repositories. The total number of open access items has risen dramatically since January 2006. Five institutions reported they have an institution–wide open access mandate, and eight are planning to implement one. Only 20 universities have funding for their repository staff and 24 universities have funding for their repository platform, either as ongoing recurrent budgeting or absorbed into their institutions' budgets. The remaining are still project funded. The platform most frequently used for Australian repositories is Fedora with Vital. Most of the remaining sites use EPrints or DSpace.

When developing new products, tools or services, one always need to think about the end users to ensure a wide-spread adoption. While this applies equally to services developed at higher education institutions, sometimes these services are driven by policies and not by the needs of end users. This policy-driven approach can prove challenging for building effective community engagement. The initial development of Research Data Management support services at the University of Cambridge was policy-driven and subsequently failed in the first instance to engage the community of researchers for whom these services were created. In this practice paper, we describe the initial approach undertaken at Cambridge when developing RDM services, the results of this approach and lessons learnt. We then provide an overview of alternative, democratic strategies employed and their positive effects on community engagement. We summarise by performing a cost-benefit analysis of the two approaches. This paper might be a useful case study for any institutions aiming to develop central support services for researchers, with conclusions applicable to the wider sector, and extending beyond Research Data Management services.