Archive for the ‘open access’ Category

This slideshow ‘ is a great summary of a very important concept.

Librarians have information literacy very high on their agendas. Part of IL is how to evaluate material found online – this is an important part of both scholarhip, and lifelong learning. The existance of pre-prints and non-peer reviewed material in repositories is something that often gets highlighted as questionable, rightly so. When explaining how to evaluate online material, some of the characteristics of repository material wouldn’t always fit into our ‘safe’ categories. The ‘matrix of authority’ that Laura Cohen is pointing out is a step in the right direction, bringing in additional criteria for evaluating material.


Read Full Post »

Food for thought, possible mathematical fumblings following…
Snapshot of publications: January – February 2008 – Web of Science Alerts

•176 articles listed with University of Bath affiliated authors
•119 articles published with publishers offering an Open Access payment
• Therefore 67% of articles published are with publishers offering an OA payment option.

• Average cost of OA options = seems to be around £1000 – £1500
• Various publishers embargo articles for 6 – 24 months (ie. Taylor & Francis, OUP, Blackwells..).
• Of the snapshot total, 67 articles were with publishers who allow for immediate deposit of a post-print or publisher version of an article in an OA repository.

Therefore OA payment most useful to those who wish to get their material viewed quickly rather than for open access purposes?

Read Full Post »

Okay, off to a steady start – over ten items in the repository. Hopefully more to come soon. I’ve got a spreadsheet of possible authors from Web of Science and BMC. I’m checking these against the PIP, our research expertise portal. On the side I’m contacting heads of research centres and institutes. The School of Management has a great list of research publications for their staff.
Ignore what you read – so far this part has been easier than the technical set up.

Read Full Post »

Thanks to Gareth Johnston from the RSP in Nottingham for sending this on. I think it spells out the issues in quite the sophisticated manner. Nice one Gaz! 🙂

Read Full Post »

Despite the fact that I’ve really got a million things to do, including preparing for at least three upcoming presentations – two on self-archiving and the repository, and one on blogging, I’m off work this week. And in Stockholm. It’s a family thing.
But an interesting thing to report – I put my powerpoints for the Blogging Masterclass at ILI on Slideshare.net and the one for ‘why have a blog’ has been really popular – over 350 views in the last two days! That just amazes me – has it just been picked up by someone with a large user group, or do people have search alerts set up to send them new stuff on their topic of interest? How did this get viewed by so many people? This is the power of open access. How else would my powerpoint have been distributed amongst so many in such a short space of time? Clearly a popular topic, and the nice thing – it’s been favourited 5 times. 🙂

Read Full Post »

Making huge waves in the blogosphere, the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM) has been established by AAP and partners to ‘protect the integrity of scientific research’. They’ve already come under fire in the early days of their website release with claims of the use of copyright protected images on their site. The pro-Open Access movement has fired off numerous responses, including an open letter from Peter Murray-Rust at Cambridge to Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press, questioning their support for PRISMs aims. Alma Swan has also weighed in with her thoughts, and much of the conversations are being recorded, as usual, by Peter Suber in his Open Access News blog…

Also hitting the blogosphere headlines, yesterday’s Guardian newspaper contained an article discussing peer review with the British Academy, a collection of 800 scholars in the humanities and social sciences answering some of the questions put toward the integrity and usefulness of peer review lately.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday we met with two legal people from the University to discuss licences and legal requirements for outlining deposit agreements and the like. The discussion brought up points I hadn’t thought to consider, and also highlighted the need to provide information and education on Intellectual Property Rights, including copyright and the fine print for publishing industry funded work.

Today I was trawling through a database and came across an article published by researchers here, published in a journal that is, by Sherpa ROMEO standards, a ‘white‘ journal. This means archiving is not formally supported by the publisher. I took a look at the publisher copyright statement to be signed by authors. It requires the author to agree to the following:

The author(s), in consideration of the acceptance of the above work for publication, does hereby assign and transfer to {the publisher} all of the rights and interest in and to the copyright of the above-titled work in its current form and in any subsequent ly revised form for publication and/or electronic dissemination.

Now I understand this has been standard practice for publishers and authors, but would I want to divest myself so entirely of the right to my own intellectual capital? It highlights for me the need to offer signposting to alternatives to these licences. Why not try an addendum or use the JISC/SURF Licence to Publish?

Awareness is clearly the key to making informed decisions on what happens to your intellectual property. I’m going to be working on developing material for our website, for training sessions and anywhere else I can get my foot in.

(Licence or License – my natural instinct is for the ‘s’, sorry… a case of the old ‘separated by a common language’. I fall between the two.)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »