1. Are Library Subscriptions Over-Utilised?
Libraries have many strategies for increasing use and the interests of publishers are aligned with the cost-per-use approach as it does not threaten subscription revenues. Lisa Hinchliffe, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, asks if the true value of a subscription is being obscured by over-utilisation, should libraries seek to dampen such excess in order to have more appropriate measures of the real value of a subscription?
The blog post says (quote): Libraries have put great effort into developing institutional repositories, supporting campus open access mandates, and advocating for APC funding. At least in part, the goal has been to drive down costs (and perhaps to drive down profits of commercial publishers) in addition to increasing access for readers. As open access versions of articles become increasingly available through these and other efforts, by presenting open versions to library users, or perhaps even privileging open versions, libraries could leverage the results of their efforts in negotiating for lower prices. Such contracts could still allow the library to demonstrate the value of investing in subscription resources – changing the cost-per-use not by increasing use of subscription resources but by decreasing their costs.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Measuring knowledge exchange – the road to societal impact?
Given the well-known difficulties of measuring the full impact of universities, it may be better to focus instead on knowledge exchange, the process by which the societal impact of scientific knowledge is realised. Frank Zwetsloot and Anika Duut van Goor, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, notes that “contract income” – the financial investments made by external parties in contract research, contract education, patents or start-ups in the hope of creating impact – is a meaningful indicator of impact.
The blog post says (quote): The impact of science can only be professionally measured on a quantitative basis when it is related to a kind of "direct impact". This includes attention in the media, political arena, or contract-related investments from external parties who would like to get something back for their investment in research or education. It also implies that "contract income", which in many countries accounts for almost 25 percent of the funding of university research, is a meaningful indicator for impact. Its income derives from contract parties (business, charities, government-users, European Union) who trust in a concrete kind of "payback", which will be realised in the near future. This implies that the financial investment in contract research, contract education, patents or start-ups remains the best indicator of societal impact, although there is often no impact yet........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Journals Lose Citations to Preprint Servers
Redirecting citations to preprint servers not only harms journals, which lose public recognition for publishing important work, but to the authors themselves, who may find it difficult to aggregate public acknowledgements to their work. Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen blog, discusses why an author would still cite the preprint years after it has been formally published in a journal.
The blog post says (quote): Readers may have downloaded an early version from bioRxiv and continue to cite it as a preprint; they may be copying or reusing old references; Google Scholar may be preferentially sending readers to the bioRxiv instead of the journal. While bioRxiv does its best to search for published papers and update its website with accurate metadata, this information is obviously not reaching all readers. Similar to the problem of authors continuing to improperly cite papers that have been corrected or retracted, citing earlier versions of a paper may promote incorrect or invalid scientific work. Still, even if the bioRxiv version was identical in every respect to the published version, a citation to the bioRxiv is a citation that cannot be counted towards a journal's Impact Factor and associated metrics.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. GDPR and OpenAthens Authentication Services
As GDPR comes into effect, a variety of services may be affected. One of these services is authentication. Martyn Jansen, in his post in the EBSCOpost Blog, provides some background on GDPR and outlines the updates OpenAthens has made to become compliant.
The blog post says (quote): OpenAthens only requires a username, password, e-mail address and the person's name to create the unique identification needed for people to set up an account and access on-line content. The organisation through which an individual is accessing the site - whether a university, employer, library etc. - can configure the account creation in OpenAthens to request additional details, for example job role or department, but this is not mandatory and is a choice on the part of OpenAthens' customers. OpenAthens only collects and processes the information the organisation specifies. This data is never used for OpenAthens or EBSCO's own purposes. It is only processed to provide authentication and reporting services to customers...........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply