1. Conflicting academic attitudes to copyright are slowing the move to open access
Where previously authors would typically assign rights in a scholarly work to an academic publisher, the open access movement has prompted a shift towards retention of rights and the use of creative commons licenses to control how works are used by publishers. This shift has the support of research funders, whose policies seek to ensure the widest possible readership. In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Francis Dodds suggests that while publishers have adapted with some success to a new OA environment and its contractual framework, researchers have proved more ambivalent to the changes.
The blog post says (quote): Reflecting the OA requirements of funding bodies and others, many academic publishers also now have policies recognising the right of authors to post versions of works (typically the accepted article prior to production) in institutional repositories for others to access freely. Most recently the STM has allowed a further loosening of copyright by agreeing a policy permitting limited circulation of published journal articles within scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs), whether or not they are covered by OA licenses. Perhaps most importantly, publishers have also now enthusiastically adopted gold OA publishing models in which institutions pay APCs to cover publishing costs and articles are made freely available under the terms of one of the CC licenses………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Metadata 2020 Update: Project Groups Underway
This year, Metadata 2020 is focused on gathering information and use cases that will inform the final recommendations. David Schott, in his post in the CCC Blog, shares updates on the progress so far.
The blog post says (quote): The 2018 project groups span the lifecycle of metadata: research, metadata elements and their definitions, understanding incentives for improving metadata, and best practices each group can follow to support the larger ecosystem. Overall, each project team shares a common overarching goal: educating people on why it's important to care about and invest in rich metadata. CCC’s services exist at the crossroads of numerous metadata uses including content management, discovery, rights licensing, text and data mining, open access and content delivery. Each project group varies in size from a few people to two dozen and includes volunteers from across the industry with varying backgrounds, expertise and motivations………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Improving Research Workflows
Supporting cutting-edge research is critical to the mission of universities. But all too often, the various steps in the research lifecycle are disjointed. Breaking down the silos and improving the flow of information would allow for greater collaboration between campus libraries, researchers, and the research office, discusses a post in the Ex Libris Blog.
The blog post says (quote): One step that would help is for universities to require, or at least offer, the use of tools that enable consistent research practices across departments and disciplines. Obviously, the needs of each department will vary, but the more each department can be using the same resources and technology systems, the fewer different workflows there will be. And indeed, many university research offices have made strides in this area. But this doesn’t solve the challenge of having to use disparate technology systems for separate research functions. To break down the silos that exist in the research process more completely, a new type of research platform that can unify these various functions is needed………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Recurring Dream — Organizations with Subscriptions Are More Valuable
The subscription model has a number of virtues, including spreading costs across more entities in the market, thereby lowering the cost for each in relative terms, while creating a relationship between the provider and the consumer that tends to align their interests. Other models - advertising, sponsorships, APCs - presume the consumer relationship at some level, but don’t reinforce it, or necessarily align closely with the interests of the consumer, discusses Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): With subscriptions, revenues switch from the fickle and consolidated producer-side (advertisers, corporate marketing departments, authors, and funders) to the more diverse and stable consumer side of the equation. Like advertisers and marketers, funders aren't forever. They typically have a time horizon before they shift priorities and approach, often a few years at most. The recent announcement that Wellcome Trust is re-evaluating its OA funding approach must have sent a chill through some APC-based publishers, perhaps manifesting as the word "RISK" in neon lights. If there are new approaches proffered by this leading light in APC spend, approaches others likely would follow, the market for contract review and publication services could change drastically. Similar things have happened around reprints, sponsorships, and advertising again and again………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply