After a longer than anticipated delay, the podcasts from the March 13, 2008, WFU Libraries Scholarly Communications Workshop are now available. Audio from the three presentations, as well as the opening remarks by Lynn Sutton, Director, Z. Smith Reynolds Library, can be accessed from ZSR's workshop webpage. Please note that the presentation for Framing the Issues begins around 4 minutes into the podcast.
UPDATE: The audio for Framing the Issues has been edited to remove the extended introductory remarks, and now covers only the presentation.
Showing posts with label scholarly communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scholarly communication. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
WFU Libraries Scholarly Communications Workshop
For those who were unable to join us for last week's Scholarly Communications Workshop, visit ZSR's workshop webpage to view the archived PowerPoint presentations, see the SPARC Open Access brochure distributed to participants, and find links to resources mentioned throughout the workshop. Be sure to check back next week for presentation podcasts. For notes on the presentations, check out Lauren Pressley's blog.
As always, feel free to contact me, or any of the Scholarly Communications Committee members, with questions!
As always, feel free to contact me, or any of the Scholarly Communications Committee members, with questions!
Monday, April 30, 2007
State of the State
STATE OF THE STATE: SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 27, 2007 – ELLIOTT UNIVERSITY CENTER, UNCG, GREENSBORO
SPONSOR: COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY SECTION OF THE NC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
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 institution)
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 repository
· 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
APRIL 27, 2007 – ELLIOTT UNIVERSITY CENTER, UNCG, GREENSBORO
SPONSOR: COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY SECTION OF THE NC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
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 institution)
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 repository
· 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)