Monday, April 30, 2007

State of the State


Scholarly Communications: An Introduction – Rosann Bazirjian, UNCG
· Scholarly journal publishers are charging more for electronic than print, even though cost of creation may be less
· SC needs to be understood not only as a way to solve the serials crisis for libraries, but also as a way to aid dissemination of research
· The promotion & tenure process – requirement of publishing in high impact journals –
perpetuates the continuation of the crisis
· “Author pays” OA models seen as vanity presses
· Plagiarism fears cloud understanding of OA, despite the fact that copyright/IP violations
happen within the traditional publishing structure
· Simple continuation of the existing publishing model is ill-advised as it gives publishers the
right to prohibit use, even by authors themselves
· Institutional repositories (IRs) are part of the solution to the SC crisis; also demonstrate
university’s value, quality to the world at largeIR=capture, collect, preserve

The ABC’s of Scholarly Communicaiton – Cat Saleeby McDowell, UNCG
· Why a crisis?:
o Loss of access to scholarly research literature due to rising prices and subsequent
fewer subscriptions
o Reliance on core publications entrenched in tenure
o Impact factors emphasize the quality of the journal title, NOT the quality of the
articles (assume articles must be good if in certain journals)
o US anti-trust laws lax on publishers, so lots of big fish eating little fish mergers
o Libraries committing more money to fewer publishers
· Open Access (OA)=immediate, free, online, unrestricted
· Catalog OA journals and include titles in subject guides one way to promote
· Although IRs are part of the answer, they should not be undertaken lightly
· Average startup cost of IRs $182,000, mean is $45,000; includes salary of staff, server
cost, learning time, training, etc.
· 9 largest US IRs at institutions in the top 100 colleges/universities in the nation
· Only 13% of IRs’ faculty scholarship (which accounts for only 37% of total) is peer-reviewed
· Bring out the dollar signs when educating administrators
· Target “movers & shakers” among faculty, as well as those serving as editors
· “Sneak” into another meeting to sharing OA/IR information with faculty
· Have workshop on publishing as a whole, with part devoted to OA, for junior faculty, post
docs, grad students
· Common resistance to OA/IR:
o Invested in traditional publishing model (tenure)
o Peer-review concerns
o Journal impact factors
o Disciplinary vs. institutional repositories (faculty more committed to subject than
o Plagiarism
· Research showed that if IRs went live without 100-200 items, it was hard to grow and
prove need

Implementing an Institutional Repository: Decisions and Experiences – Stephen Westman, UNCC
· Building an IR is a large-scale, complex project
· Define what you mean by “stewardship” of digital materials at the beginning
· Determine type of structure desired: document management system vs. scholarly
· Plan, plan, plan!
· Make sure you have explicit buy-in and commitment for ongoing support
· Do not underestimate importance of marketing and PR
· Keep project faculty-focused; let them feel ownership
· Tie to faculty benefits (what’s in it for them?):
o Stable, long-term access and preservation with permanent URL
o Increased circulation, hence increased citations (show how many times item has
been downloaded) o Ability to do full text searching
· Have an elevator speech prepared
· Communicate early and often (should be two-way)
· Future migration costs need to be thought about, even thought this likely won’t be an issue
in near future

Care about Your Copyrights – Peggy Hoon, NCSU
· Technologies have forced copyright onto center stage
· Does institution have policy that addresses copyright ownership? Most allow faculty to retain copyright
· Intellectual property (IP) is an individual’s most valuable asset; for researchers, this is
what they live and train for
· Copyright holder is in the driver’s seat with respect to how work can be accessed and used

· Copyright transfers must be in writing and signed
· Copyright is actually a bundle of rights:
o Reproduction
o Modification
o Distribution
o Public performance
o Public display
o Public performance of sound recording by digital transmission
· If authors sign away all copyright, they will likely experience future limitations

· Authors can:
o Completely transfer copyright
o Transfer but retain some rights for self and/or institution
o Keep copyright and only license to other entity
· Advice has shifted from “keep your copyright” to “keep the rights you need, as many as
you can, for as many people as you can”
o Less threatening for publishers
o Faculty not responsible for granting use permissions; publishers have copyright and
therefore field such requests
· Don’t be afraid to negotiate – the publisher is obviously interested in the work

Panel Discussion – Rebecca Kemp, UNCW (moderator); Allan Scherlen, ASU; Evelyn Council, FSU; Kate McGraw, UNC; Kevin Smith, Duke; Peter Fritzler, UNCW
· Author addendum, even if pushed back, leave open possibility for negotiation
· Addendum at least get authors to understand copyright issues; way to get faculty – and
publishers – thinking about copyright and future use
· UNC established OA fund to supply authors with money to pay publishing fees; not highly
used but good marketing tool; excludes authors whose grant award provides publication fee coverage
· “Squeeky wheel”, “under the table” publishing agreements brought out by publishers when
authors push for rights retention
· Grad students a better audience than faculty for OA, IR, copyright retention
· UNCW librarians targeted NIH researchers to jointly learn how PubMed Central works
· Easier inroads with individual, small groups, departmental groups of faculty
· Highlight early adopters
· Start at individual-level interest (appeal point)
· IR provides snapshot of what the institution can offer to the world
· Establish identity for IR – let this be a choice that is made, not one dictated by what
happens as it evolves

No comments: