http://www.aypwip.org/webnote/acrl2005Webnote RSS feedSat, 09 Apr 2005 19:51:13 GMTPyRSS2Gen-1.0.0http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssWhat if Open Access Succeeds? OA = Works created with no expectation of $ and made available at no cost on the public Internet for education and research Repository movement - roots in disciplinary fields - institutions, consortia, departments/schools, personal websites - "referatories" virtual repositories/portals higher ed core interests: competitive market, easy distribution and reuse, innovative applications of tech. quality assurance, permanent archiving Rick Johnson - SPARC OA = a vision of s.c. in the networked digital environment: potential usage is maximized Bethesda-Berlin Definition Strategies - open access journals (doaj.org) - self-income: publication fees $500-$1500, BMC PLoS; institutional subsidies or voluntary contributors - open access archives (institutional=D Space, disciplinary=arxiv.org) - most often responsibility of institutional libraries overlay journals - certification google/Scholar/OAIster - awareness LoCKSS - archiving CiteBased - rewarding - others (intellectual property conservancies, information commons, guild publishing) LIbrary roles publishers, aggregators, repository hosts, service providers, funders Suzanne Thorin - IU academy currently unchanged by open access movement - strengthen relationships with faculty, know how they operate within their disciplines, encourage librarians to work with faculty outside of the library, stay one or two steps ahead of the disciplines, offer new services to meet the needs of faculty - develop flexible organizations structures, develop digital librarians who understand metasearching, disciplinary standards and practices, and markup languages; create spaces for librarians to discuss faculty research needs such as tabular data - repurpose existing funds toward new endeavors: consider moving collections budget for digitazation of special collections, media collections, GIS, web pages, weblogs - seek partnerships that pay off- tech, colleges/schools/departments, etc.http://www.aypwip.org/webnote/acrl2005#note1Scholarly Communication NIH policy - E. Zerhouni A ccess A rchive A dvance S cience PubMed Central - permanent, central, live archive "portfolio" of research available for analysis of redundancies, gaps, etc. Orignally requested that final author's copy be submitted to PMC. Available at 6 months after publication, or sooner if publisher agreed. Revised policy: neither pro-publisher or pro-library --> pro science. Authors specify PMC availability (ranging up to12 months) American Society for Cell Biology - E. Mericola(?) non-profit, basic biomedical research society, international, typically in universities What do the costs/e-article include? Only the publicly funded articles should be considered in this debate. (not the front matter, news and views, etc.) ASCB sends a separate paper newsletter to its members. ASCB's MBC institutes 2-month embargo. Chosen arbitrarily. Still realizes revenue, really is the "sweet spot" Subscriptions increased (though it is a fairly new journal). Online hits to any single article drops precipitously after 2-3 months after publication. Provost at Carnegie Mellon University Access not primary concern, cost is consolidation of the market has led to for-profit abuses. E-access has allowed abuse through bundling and access restrictions. Provost community is generally supportive of NIH with a few caveats: 1) began with a wording from Congress to look into the issue 2) NIH views some things as "logistic details", which provost feel are more than that 3) added tremendous pressure on university presses to produce monographs Fairness? taxpayers pay for the research academia supplies the labor for free, referee for free, and get stuck with tremendous costs "invisible hand" theorem from Adam Smith - assumptions of monopoly power by private publishers - network extranalities - research as a public good Digitization adds another dimension--one can disseminate research wtih zero incremental costs, but what about recovering the base costs? Attractive features of NIH plan: not a drastic change, not replacing a peer review system, seems fair ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm Open Access Working Group hopes to move this to other federal agencies http://www.aypwip.org/webnote/acrl2005#note0