Home – Open Educational Resources Advocacy Toolkit | LibGuides at CAUL – Council of Australian University Librarians

The OER Advocacy Toolkit was created as part of the CAUL Enabling a Modern Curriculum OER Advocacy Project. It was designed as a reference to support academic librarians in advocating for the creation and re-use of open educational resources (OER) at their institution.

The Toolkit contains:

information
resources
checklists
practice-based ideas

for communicating with and advocating to OER stakeholders such as academics, librarians, teaching and learning committees and university executives.

 

Monkeypox and open access: time to change the narrative | Plan S

“For the fourth time in less than seven years, the community of science and technology leaders have issued a statement calling on publishers to make disease-specific research open access.  In 2016 the focus was Zika; in 2018, Ebola; in 2020, COVID-19 and in 2022, it is for research relating to monkeypox. To misquote Oscar Wilde, to ask once may be regarded as a misfortune; to ask on four occasions looks like carelessness.

These calls for research to be made Open Access recognise that immediate access to research can accelerate the global response to public health emergencies. Hitherto, publishers have responded positively to these requests and made relevant research free to read.  For example, Elsevier and Springer Nature alone have deposited around 200k COVID-related articles into PubMed Central.  And, it seems likely that they, and many other publishers, will respond accordingly in making monkeypox research freely accessible.

However, even when publishers provide free access to this research, it is typically time-limited and may contain restrictions on how the research can be reused. Indeed, a recent study looking at the impact of the statement calling for COVID research to be made Open Access, concluded that some publishers “have already started re-introducing paywalls” for this content. Given that the pandemic is ongoing, this is both disappointing and worrying….”

Job vacancy Head of External Relations and Advocacy | Europeana Pro

“As head of external relations and advocacy at the Europeana Foundation you will manage and develop strategic positioning and relationships to maximise the impact of the Europeana brand in the digital cultural heritage landscape and contribute to strengthening Europeana’s role vis a vis Member States. 

Working directly to the General Director, you will develop narrative and messaging that promotes organisational values and objectives and develop the strategy for engaging with key EU stakeholders.

Working closely with the MarComms team and the Member States Liaison officer, you will develop and deliver an advocacy and stakeholder engagement strategy to support an integrated organisational approach to communications, marketing and stakeholder engagement and you will lead corporate communications and advocacy activities as part of that approach.

This position is key to the success of Europeana as it creates understanding and awareness of the organisation, the value it provides and its role in the cultural, digital and political landscape.  …”

Knowledge Rights 21 Calls for Action on Library Rights – Internet Archive Blogs

“Last week, Knowledge Rights 21 released a strong call to action to ensure that libraries can continue serving their centuries old role in society of providing access to knowledge to the public. Knowledge Rights 21 is an Arcadia funded project advocating for copyright and open access reform across Europe.

In their Position Statement on eBooks and eLending, Knowledge Rights 21 explains that government action is urgently needed because the market for eBooks now operates outside of the current copyright law that permits libraries to acquire, lend and preserve physical books. Monopolistic behavior by commercial publishers including refusals to sell, embargoes, high prices, and restrictive licensing terms have frustrated libraries’ ability to undertake collection development, hurting those who rely on libraries for education, research, and cultural participation….”

A Position Statement from Knowledge Rights 21 on eBooks and eLending – Knowledge Rights 21

“eBooks are undermining the centuries-old function of libraries to acquire, lend and undertake collection development. If libraries are not free to select and maintain their own collections, this ultimately undermines not only research, health care and scientific progress, but it diminishes the lives of the millions of Europeans who are reliant on public libraries for access to education and cultural participation.

In the past few years, the issue of unsustainably high prices of eBooks has hit the headlines, but the issues go far deeper than this. As publishers have moved away from selling physical works outright to offering licences for access, exceptions and limitations in copyright law risk being overridden by licence terms.

Libraries have as a result lost their right to buy books, maintain their collections, and even undertake basic library functions such preservation and lending books between libraries. Issues such as publishers refusing to offer licenses, unsustainable prices many times higher than the that for the equivalent paper book or CD, titles not available digitally, and even loss of collection items purchased are not uncommon. …

Crucially, this is not a question that can be left to the market alone. European governments and the European Union need to recognise as a matter of public policy that libraries have no choice but to provide access to books for their users in order to fulfil their mandates.

In concrete terms, national governments need to review existing library laws, and the European Union should update the Rental and Lending Directive in line with Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht.

In this way, it is possible to reverse the trend of licensed-based eBooks undermining citizens’ and researchers’ access to information, and to reaffirm the status quo that has served libraries and users so well. We look forward to working with you all to ensure that libraries can once again continue to function and serve the public as they have done for millenia….”

Need for universal acceptance of preprinting by editors of journals of health professional education | SpringerLink

“While publishers in multiple fields are adopting preprints [2], we have discovered a great deal of confusion about the pros and cons of preprinting as well as disparity in publishers’ policies regarding preprinting in health professions education (HPE). In seeking to resolve this confusion, we documented preprint policies at 74 journals within HPE (e.g. nursing, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, rehabilitation sciences, nutrition). We culled preprint policies for 43 (58%) journals using journal websites, JISC’s Sherpa Romeo tool, and Wikipedia’s list of academic publishers by preprint policy. We then obtained information from email solicitations for an additional 27 (36%), leaving us without information for 4 (5%). Of the 70 journals for which we have information, 53 (76%) will review/accept preprinted manuscripts; 11 (16%) do not, and 6 (9%) are unclear or make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (For a link to our list of HPE journals and our understanding of their policies regarding preprinted manuscripts, see https://jahse.med.utah.edu/submission/ and select “Where to Publish”.) No wonder there is confusion.

We encourage our colleagues across the health professions to join our call to eliminate this confusion by encouraging all HPE journals to support and promote preprinting. The value of preprinting has only become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. Being able to preprint scholarship prior to formal submission enhances formative review and revision, augments the benefits of peer coaching, and promotes higher quality publications. Preprinting also makes work available to others more quickly, which can enhance collaboration and uptake of new ideas without compromising the eventual copyright of the final published product.”

Webinar Report: An introduction to open science | Inside eLife | eLife

“On April 12, 2022, our eLife Community Ambassadors and Open Science Champions heard and discussed strategies to sustainably advocate for open science (OS), as well as greater integrity and equity in research.

The aim of the webinar was to introduce OS to this global group of more than 300 early-career researchers (ECRs), as well as to discuss different ways of practising OS and how to overcome the barriers to adopting these – all under the guidance of our experienced panel of open science advocates. With our Community Ambassadors programme, we want to enable each researcher to consider their role in creating a more open and inclusive global research environment, and to facilitate a space and community for all those interested to voice any questions about or ideas for promoting OS practices in their local research communities….”

TEDx SHORTS – Academic research is publicly funded — why isn’t it publicly available?

“Erica Stone looks at the discrepancies between tax funded academic research and the post-research availability of expensive journals, and advocates for a new, open-access relationship between the public and scholars. This talk was filmed at TEDxMileHighWomen. All TEDx events are organized independently by volunteers in the spirit of TED’s mission of ideas worth spreading….”

RRS campaign preview | Plan S

“Open Access benefits everyone. Retain your rights.
It’s good for you, for science, and for society…

The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) enables authors to exercise the rights they have on their manuscripts to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository on publication and provide open access to it. To help researchers acknowledge and assert their rights, cOAlition S is launching an online campaign, under the theme “Publish with Power: Protect your rights“. The campaign aims to encourage researchers to retain their intellectual property rights, explains the steps they need to take and highlights the benefits for them and also for science and society. Below is a suite of resources about the Rights Retention Strategy, freely available for downloading, using and sharing….”

Intellectual Property and Youth: Copyright Laws Must Advance the Right to Education | infojustice

“On the occasion of a World Intellectual Property Day focused on Intellectual Property and Youth, we call on governments to ensure that national and international copyright laws ensure the right to education for all.

We applaud the choice of theme, which draws attention to the largest generation in history, who will be the driving force for sustainable and inclusive development.

Yet, young people today are faced with considerable barriers to engage politically, economically and socially. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated preexisting challenges and created new obstacles that prevent youth and students from thriving. This has been particularly evident with regard to education.

As affirmed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, education is a human right and a public good that plays an essential role in enabling young people to transform their lives and their communities. The right to education includes access to knowledge and, as highlighted by UNESCO’s International Commission on the Futures of Education, it is a life-long right that is “closely connected to the right to information, to culture and, to science”. Alarmingly, the world is completely ‘off track’ to achieve SDG 4 on Quality Education by the 2030 deadline.

Overly restrictive and outdated intellectual property laws are among the factors that have aggravated the situation facing educators and students, adding complexity, confusion and unnecessary costs. Consequently, young people and students throughout all sectors of education have been hindered from fully participating in society, from innovating and fully unlocking their creativity to benefit themselves and their communities.

In short, we must act now to ensure that Intellectual Property rules are a support, and not a barrier, to inclusive, equitable, adaptable, and high-quality education….”

What are the benefits of open access? TIB study confirms advantages and dispels reservations – Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)

“Open access – free access to scholarly publications – offers many advantages. As surveys show, however, some researchers still have reservations. In the past decade, numerous empirical studies have been published providing substantiated results on the hopes and concerns regarding open access….

To conduct this review, TIB identified a total of 318 scientific studies that empirically examine various effects of open access. From this corpus, the authors selected 61 particularly relevant studies for a systematic comparison; these were then analysed thoroughly and the various results were compared in detail.

The effects studied relate to seven major aspects of open access:

Attention in the scientific community
Quality of scientific publications
Knowledge transfer
Productivity of the publishing system
Use of publications
Inequality in the science system
Economic impact on the publishing system…

Dr. David Hopf, lead author of the study, reported the key findings: “The literature reviewed confirms several advantages of open access: open access leads to increased usage and to a professionally and geographically more diverse readership. At the same time, open access publications make a greater contribution to knowledge transfer than traditionally published research results, and the publishing process – the time between the submission and acceptance or publication of articles – is shorter. What is more, a number of negative concerns assumed in relation to the effects of open access – for example, that open access publications are of an inferior quality and lead to disadvantages in print edition sales – have been dispelled.”

However, one partial result came as a surprise: the fact that open access publications are cited more frequently than publications that are not freely available is often mentioned as an advantage of open access – and is also confirmed by most empirical studies. However, a substantial proportion of the empirical literature deviates from this result, which means that an OA citation advantage cannot be conclusively confirmed empirically. In light of a high level of plausibility and methodological difficulties in this area, however, it can still be assumed that such an advantage exists.

Just one finding indicates a negative effect of open access: where so-called article processing charges (APCs) – publication costs incurred by many open access publications – exist, authors with fewer resources may be discouraged from publishing open access, e.g. due to low income levels in some regions of the world or a lack of institutional funding. However, this is not an effect of open access per se, but rather an effect of a particular business model for financing open access publications….”