Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access

Smith, K.L., (2017). Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access. Insights. 30(3), pp.4–10. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388

The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere. The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers. 

Published on 2017-11-08 16:55:06

It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition

Geschuhn, K. & Stone, G., (2017). It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition. Insights. 30(3), pp.103–114. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.391

This paper makes the case for stronger engagement of libraries and consortia when it comes to negotiating and drafting offsetting agreements. Two workshops organized by the Efficiencies and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative in 2016 and 2017 have shown a clear need for an improvement of the current workflows and processes between academic institutions (and libraries) and the publishers they use in terms of author identification, metadata exchange and invoicing. Publishers need to invest in their editorial systems, while institutions need to get a clearer understanding of the strategic goal of offsetting. To this purpose, strategic and practical elements, which should be included in the agreements, will be introduced. Firstly, the Joint Understanding of Offsetting, launched in 2016, will be discussed. This introduces the ‘pay-as-you-publish’ model as a transitional pathway for the agreements. Secondly, this paper proposes a set of recommendations for article workflows and services between institutions and publishers, based on a draft document which was produced as part of the 2nd ESAC Offsetting Workshop in March 2017. These recommendations should be seen as a minimum set of practical and formal requirements for offsetting agreements and are necessary to make any publication-based open access business model work.

Published on 2017-11-08 17:25:00

Scholarly maps, recommenders & reference managers at Crossref Live 17

I recently attended the Crossref Live17 event in Singapore. I discovered that these events often have a heavy publisher presence, who make up most of their membership.

Still, I am a bit of a doi nerd, and I have long enjoyed watching Crossref webinars to understand what goes on in the background for dois to work (hint, it helps a lot for troubleshooting broken links in our discovery services) and recently started playing with their Crossref event data API, so it was a good opportunity to attend a non-librarian conference. It helped that it was held just a stone’s throw away from where I work and needed no registration fees to attend. I really enjoyed it, and am still thinking about what was presented days after the event, particularly the discovery implications. Continue reading “Scholarly maps, recommenders & reference managers at Crossref Live 17”

INTRODUCTION There is a growing body of accepted author manuscripts (AAMs) in national, professional, and institutional repositories. This study seeks to explore librarian attitudes about AAMs and in what contexts they should be recommended. Particular attention is paid to differences between the attitudes of librarians whose primary job responsibilities are within the field of scholarly communications as opposed to the rest of the profession. METHODS An Internet survey was sent to nine different professional listservs, asking for voluntary anonymous participation. RESULTS This study finds that AAMs are considered an acceptable source by many librarians, with scholarly communications librarians more willing to recommend AAMs in higher-stakes contexts such as health care and dissertation research. DISCUSSION Librarian AAM attitudes are discussed, with suggestions for future research and implications for librarians. Published on 2017-11-15 19:57:09

In honor of this year’s Open Access Week, here’s a personal reflection of my engagement with open…

In honor of this year’s Open Access Week, here’s a personal reflection of my engagement with open access over the 10 years of my career in academic libraries. I also consider the question “”Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate”.

Many of you may find my personal reflection of my journey in open access to be of little interest, so please feel free to jump ahead to my discussion of “Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate?” Continue reading “In honor of this year’s Open Access Week, here’s a personal reflection of my engagement with open…”

The robots are coming — the promise and peril of AI, some questions

I’m at the Charleston conference, my first time, and we had a panel discussion this morning talking about AI.

On the panel were:

Heather Staines Director of Partnerships, Hypothes.is

Peter Brantley Director of Online Strategy, UC Davis

Elizabeth Caley Chief of Staff, Meta, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

Ruth Pickering Co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer, Yewno

and myself. It was a pleasure to be on a panel with these amazing people. Continue reading “The robots are coming — the promise and peril of AI, some questions”

Why doesn’t everyone love reading e-books?

Why do many students still prefer paper books to e-books? This article summarizes a number of problems with e-books mentioned in different studies by students of higher education, but it also discusses some of the unexploited possibilities with e-books. Problems that students experience with e-books include eye strain, distractions, a lack of overview, inadequate navigation features and insufficient annotation and highlighting functionality. They also find it unnecessarily complicated to download DRM-protected e-books. Some of these problems can be solved by using a more suitable device. For example, a mobile device that can be held in a book-like position reduces eye strain, while a device with a bigger screen provides a better overview of the text. Other problems can be avoided by choosing a more usable reading application. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, since DRM protection entails a restriction of what devices and applications you can choose. Until there is a solution to these problems, I think libraries will need to purchase both print and electronic books, and should always opt for the DRM-free alternative. We should also offer students training on how to find, download and read e-books as well as how to use different devices. 

Myrberg, C., (2017). Why doesn’t everyone love reading e-books?. Insights. 30(3), pp.115–125. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.386

Published on 2017-11-08 17:09:05

What did the Disruptive Media Learning Lab ever do for us?

Picture this. The Lanchester Library, Coventry University, 2014. The Disruptive Media Learning Lab (DMLL) opens on the top floor amongst a flurry of raised eyebrows and unanswered questions. ‘What is it?’, ‘Why is it in the Library?’ and ‘Who designed the wooden hill?’ Our Academic Liaison Librarian team were asked to move in there alongside a DMLL team comprising educational researchers and principal project leads, each specializing in a flavour of teaching practice such as open, flipped and gamification. A learning technologist, project and admin staff and student activators add to the mix. Still not sure what that would mean for a library? Neither were we. This article will take you through the reasons behind this alien landing, past the hill and the grass and onto the plains of what the DMLL ever did for the Library and our students. 

Published on 2017-11-08 16:47:20

Kift, K., (2017). What did the Disruptive Media Learning Lab ever do for us?. Insights. 30(3), pp.11–19. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.373

4 New things about Google Scholar – UI, recommendations, and citation networks

I’m actually a pretty big fan of Google Scholar, which in some ways is better than our library discovery service ,but even if you aren’t a fan, given it’s popularity it’s important for librarians to keep up with the latest developments.

In any case, I’m happy to see that Google continues to enhance Google Scholar with new features. These are some of the new features and things I’ve learnt about Google Scholar lately. Continue reading “4 New things about Google Scholar – UI, recommendations, and citation networks”

My reflection on my journey in open access or Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate?

In honor of this year’s Open Access Week, here’s a personal reflection of my engagement with open access over the 10 years of my career in academic libraries. I also consider the question ““Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate”.

Many of you may find my personal reflection of my journey in open access to be of little interest, so please feel free to jump ahead to my discussion of “Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate?” Continue reading “My reflection on my journey in open access or Can you be a librarian without being an open access advocate?”

Out of the Comfort Zone: Web Literacy Training for Library Staff

The Willoughby-Eastlake Public Library is currently participating in the Mozilla Foundation’s Web Literacy pilot funded by an IMLS grant. The pilot includes 8 other libraries spread across the US from New York to Oregon.

The web literacy framework is based on three core 21st century skills: read, write, and participate. These areas are divided into more specific skills such as search, navigate, code, and protect.

A framework for entry-level web literacy & 21st Century skills. Source credit: learning.mozilla.org

Continue reading “Out of the Comfort Zone: Web Literacy Training for Library Staff”

NDSR at iPres 2017

Last month I had the privilege of representing NDSR and BHL on a global platform. I attended and presented a poster at iPRES, the major international conference on the preservation and long-term management of digital materials hosted at Kyoto University in Kyoto, Japan.

The official theme of iPres 2017 was, “Keeping Cultural Diversity for the Future in the Digital Space–from Pop Culture to Scholarly Information” and presentations covered everything from strategies for preserving ancient Chinese caves to challenges of preserving augmented reality games such as Pokemon Go. The unofficial mantra of the conference could be “digitization is not digital preservation.” While digitization is an important step in preserving culturally and historically important artifacts, it is not the end of the preservation lifecycle. Sustaining digital objects for long term preservation remains a challenge for professionals in this field, and iPres gives us the opportunity to share lessons and ideas with each other in order to be better stewards of digital items. Continue reading “NDSR at iPres 2017”

Are search results in library discovery really more trust-worthy? Of Predatory journals & Authority

We can all agree that Google Scholar has many strengths , but no matter how complete or deep it’s indexing, how much better it is at finding free articles or it’s presumed better relevancy ranking , we librarians have always had one weakness of Google Scholar to point at. We often say “Despite it’s strengths, still we have to be careful, after all we don’t know what Google Scholar actually includes, as they refuse to provide lists of sources”. Continue reading “Are search results in library discovery really more trust-worthy? Of Predatory journals & Authority”

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑