If publishers have their way, libraries’ digital options will see major cuts | The Hill

“To many, controlled digital lending might sound obscure and disconnected from their own lives, and to be honest, I can see why. After all, controlled digital lending is based on the finer points of well-established U.S. copyright law — loaning books to people — it’s not something a lot of library patrons pay attention to. Moreover, when it’s working seamlessly, it’s a bit like one of those apps that runs unobtrusively in the background of your computer’s operating system. Patrons only notice it when it slows or stops working.  

If a pending lawsuit by major American book publishers challenging its legal limits succeeds, controlled digital lending’s absence might be a lot more noticeable to a lot more people. It will be harder to borrow digital books and other materials from the growing number of libraries that practice controlled digital lending or some form of it.

Combine that with other efforts by book publishers to curb access to digital content and there are troubling consequences for how an information-based society like ours continues to drive economic, social and political progress….”

Depositing Data: A Usability Study of the Texas Data Repository

Abstract:  Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the usability of the Texas Data Repository (TDR) for the data depositors who are unfamiliar with its interface and use the results to improve user experience.

Methods: This mixed-method research study collected qualitative and quantitative data through a pre-survey, a task-oriented usability test with a think-aloud protocol, and an exit questionnaire. Analysis of the quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistics) and qualitative data (e.g., content analysis of the thinking-aloud protocols) were employed to examine the TDR’s usability for first-time data depositors at Texas A&M University.

Results: While the study revealed that the users were generally satisfied with their experience, the data suggest that a majority of the participants had difficulty understanding the difference between a dataverse collection and dataset, and often found adding or editing metadata overwhelming. The platform’s tiered model for metadata description is core to its function, but many participants did not have an accurate mental model of the platform, which left them scrolling up and down the page or jumping back and forth between different tabs and pages to perform a single task. Based on the results, the authors made some recommendations.

Conclusions: While this paper relies heavily on the context of the Harvard Dataverse repository platform, the authors posit that any self-deposit model, regardless of platform, could benefit from these recommendations. We noticed that completing various metadata fields in the TDR required participants to pivot their mindset from a data creator to that of a data curator. Moreover, the methods used to investigate the usability of the repository can be used to develop additional studies in a variety of repository and service model contexts. 

What Does My Library Need to Know about Ebook Laws? | American Libraries Magazine

“Minow and guest author Kyle K. Courtney discuss the library ebooks landscape and state-level efforts to institutionalize fair licensing terms….

In the short term, publishers and ebook aggregators are preventing libraries from acquiring ebooks with fair licensing (or purchasing) terms that would allow libraries to adequately provide continual access to them. Current ebook licenses offered to libraries come with many restrictions on use, are often prohibitively expensive, and sometimes are not available at any price.

In the long term, libraries do not own but lease ebook titles, which affects collection development and services like interlibrary loan and preservation as there are no legal terms in the licenses to make them a permanent part of the library collection….”

DORA Survey of Research Assessment Practices in U.S. Institutions | DORA

“Are you currently employed as a senior administrator (e.g., President, Provost, Vice-Provost, Dean, Department head), researcher, or librarian at a research institute in the United States? Do you have experience with research assessment practices within your institute?

If so, DORA invites you to complete our survey about faculty (assistant, associate, or full professor) hiring, promoting, and tenure practices within your institute….”

Institutions partner with ACS to advance first California-wide transformative open access agreement – Office of Scholarly Communication

“Three California consortia, representing nearly 60 academic and research institutions, and the Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) today announced the first-ever California-wide transformative open access agreement. It is also ACS’ first “read and publish” agreement in the U.S. composed of multiple consortia. Through a partnership with the 10-campus University of California (UC) system, the 23-campus California State University (CSU) system, and 25 subscribing institutions represented by the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC), readers and researchers at dozens of California research institutions will be able to benefit from full access to subscription content while receiving support for open access publication in ACS’ portfolio of more than 75 premier chemistry journals….”

Public access policy in the United States: Impact of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable – Plutchak – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable was formed in 2009 at the request of a US Congressional Committee to develop recommendations for public access policy.
Published in January 2010, the Roundtable’s recommendations had a significant impact on the guidelines for federal funding agencies issued in 2013.
The Roundtable was unique in bringing together individuals holding divergent views about open access policy.
The success of the Roundtable may provide important lessons for policymakers in addressing open access issues….”

Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research

Abstract:  Open  Access  (OA)  emerged  as  an  important  transition  in  scholarly  publishing  worldwide during the past two decades. So far, this transition is increasingly based on article processing charges (APC), which create a new paywall on the researchers’ side. Publishing is part of the research  process  and  thereby  necessary  to  perform  research.  This  study  analyses  the  global trends towards paying to perform research by combing observed trends in publishing from 2015 to 2020 with an APC price list. APC expenses have sharply increased among six countries with different  OA  policies:  the  USA,  China,  the  UK,  France,  the  Netherlands,  and  Norway.  The estimated global revenues from APC among major publishers now exceed 2 billion US dollars annually. Mergers and takeovers show that the industry is moving towards APC-based OA as the more profitable business  model.  Research publishing will be closed  to  those who cannot make an institution or project money payment. Our results lead to a discussion of whether APC is the best way to promote OA.

Gearing Up for 2023 Part II: Implementing the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy – NIH Extramural Nexus

“NIH has a long history of developing consent language and, as such, our team worked across the agency – and with you! – to develop a new resource that shares best practices for developing informed consents to facilitate data/biospecimen storage and sharing for future use.  It also provides modifiable sample language that investigators and IRBs can use to assist in the clear communication of potential risks and benefits associated with data/biospecimen storage and sharing.  In developing this resource, we engaged with key federal partners, as well as scientific societies and associations.  Importantly, we also considered the 102 comments from stakeholders in response to a RFI that we issued in 2021.

As for our second resource, we are requesting public comment on protecting the privacy of research participants when data is shared. I think I need to be upfront and acknowledge that we have issued many of these types of requests over the last several months and NIH understands the effort that folks take to thoughtfully respond.  With that said, we think the research community will greatly benefit from this resource and we want to hear your thoughts on whether it hits the mark or needs adjustment….”

NASA Transform to Open Science Community Forum on May 12 – General – GOSH Community Forum

“As NASA’s Transform to Open Science 1 (TOPS) moves into the upcoming 2023 Year of Open Science, the TOPS team will regularly update the community on these activities, highlight open science success stories and lessons learned, Q&A, and other open science news in a series of TOPS Community Forums.

We invite you to join us May 12th at 2:00-3:00pm for NASA’s TOPS Community Forum. Participants can enter their question(s) or up-vote others’ questions – to help guide the discussions needed for successful implementation – after providing their first and last names and organizations at this portal: TOPS Community Engagement – NASA 1 . We will try to answer as many of the submitted questions as possible….”

DataWorks! Challenge | HeroX

“Share your story of how you reused or shared data to further your biological and/or biomedical research effort and get recognized!…

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are championing a bold vision of data sharing and reuse. The DataWorks! Prize fuels this vision with an annual challenge that showcases the benefits of research data management while recognizing and rewarding teams whose research demonstrates the power of data sharing or reuse practices to advance scientific discovery and human health. We are seeking new and innovative approaches to data sharing and reuse in the fields of biological and biomedical research. 

To incentivize effective practices and increase community engagement around data sharing and reuse, the 2022 DataWorks! Prize will distribute up to 12 monetary team awards. Submissions will undergo a two-stage review process, with final awards selected by a judging panel of NIH officials. The NIH will recognize winning teams with a cash prize, and winners will share their stories in a DataWorks! Prize symposium.”

HBCU Affordable Learning Solutions Community Portal

“The HBCU Affordable Learning Community is building a collection of free and open educational resources to support faculty and students teaching and learning in Africana, African American, and Black Studies programs as well as bringing the Africana, African American, and Black Studies content and context into all disciplines. We know the topic areas within the collection will expand over time with the participation and leadership of the HBCU community.”

Transforming the Scholarly Publishing Economy: Reflections on the First Three Years | April 2022

“As a follow-up to our CNI reporting in 2020, this briefing will focus on the status of The Ohio State University Libraries’ Transforming the Scholarly Publishing Economy strategic initiative. We are taking stock of the first three years of our initiative and looking toward renewing our strategic efforts in this space. We will highlight our current portfolio of transformational and transitional agreements, our support for open scholarly infrastructure and publishing, and our work with our consortial partners. We will also share our current thinking on future directions for our initiative.”

Coalition for Networked Information

Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum | April 2022 | Sacramento State University, US

Summary: “In 2019, Sacramento State University and San Jose State University were awarded an IMLS National Forum grant to assess scholarly communication programs at M1 Carnegie classified public institutions. With new technologies and paradigms for creating and sharing work, scholars across all fields have seen changes in research output, dissemination and preservation of the scholarly record, emergent publishing models, and the measurement of scholarly impact. Libraries have broadly defined their efforts to address these concerns as “scholarly communication” services. During the past two decades, academic libraries have begun to further invest in scholarly communication through the allocation of staffing and resources and even establishing institutional repositories. However, quantifying the actual outcome or impact of these scholarly communication activities remains elusive, beyond output measures such as simple counts of consultations, workshop attendance, or by repository downloads or growth. This grant, the “Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum,” or “SCAF”, investigated best practices and made recommendations for better tracking academic libraries’ engagement in supporting the research lifecycle.”