Open Access Awareness and Perceptions in an Institutional Landscape

Abstract:  The aim of this study was to determine the awareness of open access among the academic staff of a research-oriented Spanish university, their use of the institutional repository and their satisfaction with its services. An anonymous survey of 37 questions was sent to all professors, researchers and doctoral students of the University of Navarra. A total of 352 responses (17%) were received. The responses showed statistically significant differences in opinions concerning open access journals and services created on top of the repository. Although there was general agreement on the need for open access, half the respondents adopted open access practices (which included the use of the institutional repository, and other pages and academic platforms). This percentage increased with the older respondents, who were also senior members of staff with tenure and positions of authority at the university. The decision to make publications accessible in open access depends on academic reward and on professional recognition. The services offered by the repository were generally perceived positively, with differences according to the age and subject area of the respondents. The awareness of those differences might help the university library to provide faculty with training and products that suit to their needs and habits.

Home – Center for Open Data Enterprise

“The mission of the Center for Open Data Enterprise is to maximize the value of open data as a public resource. 

We believe that open data can support economic growth and social good around the world. 

To realize its promise, this global resource needs to be developed and managed in ways that meets the needs of the people and organizations that use it. However, there are currently few effective ways for data users to give input and feedback. 

We seek to fill this gap by starting with data users – working with governments, businesses, and nonprofits – to develop smarter open data strategies.”

Eminent Harvard Geneticist Professor George Church Joins uBiome Advisory Board – Houston Chronicle

“uBiome, the leading microbial genomics company, welcomes the appointment of distinguished Harvard geneticist Professor George Church to its advisory board. George Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, and Director of the Personal Genome Project, which aims to create open access genomic, environmental, and trait data for the greater good….”

Brief of Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellees and Affirmance, (The Authors Guild, Inc., et al., v. Google, Inc., et al.) (Second Circuit) by Matthew L. Jockers, Matthew Sag, Jason Schultz :: SSRN

Abstract:  The Brief of Digital Humanities and Legal Scholars as Amici in Authors Guild v. Google was signed by over 150 researchers, scholars and educators who believe that Copyright law is not, and should not be, an obstacle to the computational analysis of text. 

Copyright law has long recognized the distinction between protecting an author’s original expression and the public’s right to access the facts and ideas contained within that expression. We argue that this distinction should be maintained in the digital age so that library digitization, internet search and related non-expressive uses of written works remain legal.

Could #Blockchain provide the technical fix to solve science’s reproducibility crisis?

Soenke Bartling and Benedikt Fecher on the use of blockchain technology in research.

Currently blockchain is being hyped. Many claim that the blockchain revolution will affect not only our online life, but will profoundly change many more aspects of our society. Many foresee these changes as potentially being more far-reaching than those brought by the internet in the last two decades. If this holds true, it is certain that research and knowledge creation will also be affected by this. So, what is blockchain all about? More importantly, could knowledge creation benefit from it? One potential area it could be useful is in addressing the credibility and reproducibility crisis in science.

Richard Johnson Receives 2016 LITA/Christian Larew Memorial Scholarship | News and Press Center

“Johnson is the Co-Director of Digital Initiatives and Scholarship at Hesburgh Libraries of the University of Notre Dame. In this role, he directs the design and development of the libraries’ data curation and digital library solutions. He also currently serves as a Visiting Program Officer for the Association of Research Libraries for the SHARE project to develop and deepen SHARE partnerships with other organizations to improve data sharing, metadata alignment, and foster a tighter network of research repositories, databases, and information systems. Johnson has contributed to several other collaborations such as DASPOS (Data and Software Preservation for Open Science), an NSF grant funded project focused on open sharing of scientific data especially within High Energy Physics (HEP), and a burgeoning collaboration between Notre Dame and the Center for Open Science. He spearheaded the implementation of the University of Notre Dame’s institutional repository, CurateND, and he has contributed to the multi-institutional Hydra collaboration as both a code committer and technical manager on several projects….”

The F1000Research authorship policy

“Unlike almost all research journals, we publish first (where the article becomes citable but clearly labelled ‘awaiting peer review’) before invited (not crowdsourced) peer review. Prior to publication, we run a number of checks, which we try to make as objective as we can to avoid us making subjective judgements on the content itself and consequently biasing the types of studies that are published. Everything that we publish is then sent to invited experts. In order to ensure thorough peer review, referees must meet criteria of expertise and experience….It is for the above reasons that we have tried to develop some criteria that minimise subjective decisions on our part whilst maximising the opportunity to share real research findings with the research community….”

Someday, Altmetrics Will No Longer Need ‘Alt’. This headline from the +Chron…

“This headline from the Chronicle of Higher Education [“Someday, Altmetrics Will No Longer Need ‘Alt’.”] is obviously true.

It reminds me of a bit of history that I don’t think I’ve recorded before. In the 2001 deliberations that led to the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, we initially used the term alternative journals. At one point I suggested that we replace the term with open-access journals.  The “alt” made these journals sound fringe, incendiary, immature and untested, or more focused on protest than substance. The group agreed, and we used open-access journals in the public statement.

Footnote: The BOAI is notable in part for giving equal emphasis to green and gold OA. We used the term open-access journals for the gold side. On the green side, we used the term archive, while many of us soon after switched over to repository.  At least in my own case, this was a result of protests from traditional archivists who looked at these online databases and said, “Those are not archives!” True enough,  in the traditional sense of the term. Although language constantly evolves to apply old terms to new things, in this case I found it easier to change archive to repository in my own writing than to fight the archivists. I’ve never heard a traditional librarian who worked with pre-OA repositories complain about the way the OA movement uses the term repository.”

The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Sharon M. Leon – Los Angeles Review of Books

“Let me start by saying that my entire perspective on this has been deeply shaped by the years I spent with Roy Rosenzweig, who was a very optimistic but practical guy. His willingness to strive for democratic access to materials, to scholarship, to primary sources, to intellectual work, motivates everything that we do at the Center and it motivates my work. I think we have made huge strides in digital work on that front. Now there are millions and millions of open-access primary sources available for the world to use. That level of access has enabled a whole set of other developments in digital culture — the idea of remix culture: that people can take stuff, recombine it, ask their own questions, and do their own work is hugely important. I think to some scholars this is really threatening because it also involves a loss of control over message, interpretation, and authority. But this is just classic reception theory: people are always receiving and making sense out of the material they encounter on their own. And to assume we can control that ever is ridiculous. The other positive thing digital humanities has done is to embrace an open source ethos that has made tools and methods and platforms freely available for people to use. Those tools are now in the world and they are changing the ways that people are presenting their scholarship and the kinds of questions they are asking. More and more, everything is tilting toward open access and open source. We can’t get there fast enough as far as I’m concerned.”

Is it time for authors to leave SSRN? | Authors Alliance

“Reports are surfacing that, without notice, SSRN is removing author-posted documents following SSRN’s own, opaque determination that the author must have transferred copyright, the publisher had not consented to the posting, or where the author has opted to use a non-commercial Creative Commons license.”