Scholarly Communication http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm at the University of Texas at Arlington Libraries Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:46:28 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://blog.uta.edu/?v=4.7.6-alpha-40770 The Cost of Knowledge Signees http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2015/06/24/the-cost-of-knowledge/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2015/06/24/the-cost-of-knowledge/#respond Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:11:52 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=235 Note on data in visualization.

This data is a snapshot of the signees to The Cost of Knowledge website on Wednesday, May 27, 2015.

Data provided by Tyler Neylon

Signees to the boycott provide an affiliation, not  a location. In order to do this spatial visualization Josh Been utilized the Bing Maps mapping API to assign geocods to signees affiliation. We disregarded points that it estimated to have less then a 30% chance of being correct. Rafia Mirza and Josh Been then used Tableau Public to create this visualization.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2015/06/24/the-cost-of-knowledge/feed/ 0
Author Rights http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2014/04/29/author-rights/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2014/04/29/author-rights/#respond Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:17:29 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=198

Did you know you can retain some or all of the rights associated with your journal publications, including copyright, and still publish with the journal of your choice? Rather than transfer away all of their rights to publishers, many authors are approaching publishers with an addendum to the publishing contract, modifying the copyright transfer agreement to retain certain rights to use their works in the ways that they need.

Why would you want to retain rights? To reuse, or to authorize others to reuse portions of the work in future publications without being concerned with copyright infringement. To disseminate your work to students or colleagues. To store it on your website or a course website. To deposit a version of it in ResearchCommons, the institutional repository for UT Arlington, or other open access repositories, so that researchers who are not members of institutions paying tens of thousands of dollars for access to journals can still find it, read it, and cite it–and a growing body of research indicates that making works openly available on the web increases citation counts and impact.

You can check a particular journal’s official policy on author rights retention: perhaps you already have the right to deposit your work in the institutional repository. Or, send an email to researchcommons@uta.edu and library staff will comb your publications on Mentis for you, establishing those works that your publisher will allow you to add to ResearchCommons according to the terms of your contract with them. The library will manage the process of ingesting, preserving, and making these works more accessible.

Value your copyright, and do not transfer to the publisher more than is needed to publish and distribute an article. If you want to find out more about copyright transfer agreements, open access, or other issues related to scholarly communications, contact the Libraries’ Department of Scholarly Communications at library-sc@listserv.uta.edu!

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2014/04/29/author-rights/feed/ 0
The open access button http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/the-open-access-button/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/the-open-access-button/#respond Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:41:25 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=108

Paywalls reported by the OA button, 11/19/13-11/26/13. Creative Commons image courtesy https://www.openaccessbutton.org

As researchers and librarians, we have certainly had the experience of running into a paywall.

We have been searching for information in the databases for ages with little luck, when we think of just the right keywords and come across an article that seems to be precisely what we have been looking for. We click on the article and read the abstract: yes, this is the one I need! But there is no PDF Full Text link. We click on the link resolver to see if it’s available in another database, and the dreaded message flashes on screen. Sorry, no online version available at UTA. Please see additional options below for finding this journal.

Or a student approaches the desk with an article in her hands, and points to the references. “I need this article.” We check our online holdings…I’m sorry, but we do not subscribe to this journal…How soon did you need it?

In any case, if the library does not own a copy of the journal in print, we must either place an interlibrary loan, physically travel to a nearby library that has access and is willing to provide guests with access, or simply do without the article.

The open access movement has been building for approximately the last decade in an attempt to erase paywalls for scholarly literature, so that it can be free to users and accessible anywhere there is an internet connection. It is about challenging the system of publication that keeps the work of researchers out of the reach of anyone outside of those willing to pay exorbitant subscription fees, and enabling all people to share in the fruits of research. See the list of resources below to read more about what open access is and what the movement seeks to achieve.

Logo of the open Access Button“Each paywall that I hit is an indictment of a broken scholarly publishing system, where people are denied access to research that they need, and ultimately paid for…Paywalls conflict irreconcilably with the power of the Internet.” These words were spoken by David Carroll (beginning at the 2:39:30 mark), a medical student and co-founder of the open access button. Last week a motivated group of students, seeing this broken system as one they would one day inherit, teamed with developers and organizations from around the world to create it and make it available for download. This is a browser-based tool that will enable us to collect information on “who is being denied access to research, where they were in the world, what they do, and why they wanted to read that research.”

Carroll continues, in the above linked video, to lay out the three aims of the open access button:

  1. To capture and visualize data on how often people hit paywalls and what the impact of this is
  2. Assist people to find legally available copies of papers behind paywalls using Google Scholar, open access repositories, and other methods
  3. To create a platform for the open access community allowing further innovation

The Guardian published an article on the launch date providing more context and instruction on what the button does:

The OA button is a bookmarklet that you simply drag to the toolbar of your browser. If you find yourself at a paywall, typically asking for $30-40 for a single article, clicking the button will log the details of the encounter — the article, your location and your reason for trying to access it — and will then help you to try to find the article using Google Scholar, which in my experience does a decent job of finding free author-deposited versions of the paper where these exist. If this should fail, the plan also is to facilitate a direct email request to the author for a copy of the paper.

Anyone who uses the internet to do research can download it. Their aim is for the button to be used globally, as those in underdeveloped nations are even more deleteriously impacted by paywalls, both because of their need for quality research and because their institutions are less able to afford to pay publisher subscription fees.

A screencap of the OA button on my browser

The button is very easy to use. The first day I (Clarke) installed it, I already genuinely ran into two paywalls. Reporting the paywall is easy; just click on the button, fill in a couple fields, and submit it. It does not redirect you to another page or require you to log-in.

Install it now! Use it, tell students and faculty about it, and advocate for it!

Open Access Resources & Websites

Crawford, W. (2011). Open access: What you need to know now. Chicago: American Library Association.

Directory of Open Access Journals

SPARC: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource Coalition

Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/the-open-access-button/feed/ 0
Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Citation Indexing Systems http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/web-of-science-google-scholar-and-citation-indexing-systems/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/web-of-science-google-scholar-and-citation-indexing-systems/#respond Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:43:02 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=51 Last week the UT Arlington Libraries Access & Discovery staff received an email from SerialsSolutions, relaying the news that Web of Science would no longer be indexed in Summon, our discovery service. This post provides a bit of background to and opinions about that announcement.

During the Charleston Conference, an annual conference aimed at those in the collection development and acquisitions industry, Thomson Reuters and Google Scholar announced that they had made a deal to link their content: Web of Science citations would show up in Google Scholar with links directly to Web of Science, and researchers could click on a link from Web of Science to see a search on the item from within Google Scholar. This news came a few days before Google’s launch of Scholar Library, their foray into citation management.

Initially this seemed like a great development, in that it increases access to Web of Science citations. Also, researchers conducting literature reviews or research impact analysis could take advantage of Google’s speed and ease of use along with Web of Science’s advanced search, filtration, and analysis options to, for instance, more efficiently filter out non-peer reviewed items and obtain an in-depth knowledge of an article’s citation counts.

However, after a few days, many libraries (including UT Arlington) received an email from SerialsSolutions (the company that runs Summon), stating:

Last week we were notified by Thomson that they will no longer be participating partners with any discovery service. This means that after December 31st, Web of Science content will no longer be discoverable in the Summon service – nor will we be displaying WoS citation counts.

Libraries with ExLibris’s discovery service, Primo Central, received the same message. This blog post directly reproduced the letter from Thomson Reuters that was sent to ExLibris:

“Thomson Reuters has decided to focus on enabling customers and end users to use the Web of Science research discovery environment as the primary interface for authoritative search and evaluation of citation connected research. For this reason Thomson Reuters will no longer make Web of Science content available for indexing within EBSCO, Summon, or Primo Central. Thomson Reuters will, however, continue to support Web of Science accessibility via integrated federated search tools that are available in Primo or other systems.

“The impact of this decision on your end users will be limited because the vast majority of the Web of Science records are available in Primo Central via Elsevier Scopus and other resources of similar quality. The Scopus collection is now fully indexed in the Primo Central Index and is searchable by mutual customers of Scopus and Primo Central.

Another letter from Thomson Reuters is reproduced here. Of interest:

Increasingly we have seen that while Discovery Services are a valuable tool for accessing full text content, they are not a replacement for the unique research discovery experience that the Web of Science offers.

As enabling research discovery based on citation connections is the primary objective of the Web of Science, and the foundation upon which our evaluation, selection and indexing process is based, we believe it is in the best interest of our customers and end users to use the Web of Science research discovery environment as the primary interface for authoritative search and evaluation of citation connected research.

For this reason we will no longer make Web of Science content available for indexing within EBSCO, Summon or Primo Central. We will, however, continue to support Web of Science Accessibility via linking and federated search capabilities in each of these discovery layers.

Notwithstanding their remarks on “enabling” users to rely on the Web of Science interface and that using their interface is “in the best interests of [their] customers,” they went through with the deal with Google to facilitate the use of their citations on Google Scholar. This implied to us that Thomson Reuters deal with Google Scholar was exclusive, and that Thomson Reuters was decisively turning its back on library discovery services, banking on Google Scholar as the discovery service of the future.

After what we assume to be quite a bit of push back from various libraries, Thomson made another announcement, that they “…have been in the process of evaluating our relationships with the three major discovery service providers [EBSCO/Proquest/Ex-Libris] and have decided to continue the indexing of Web of Science in them.”

In our opinion, this is not an issue of open access, since these links will only appear to Google Scholar users who are logged in as affiliates of universities that already subscribe to Web of Science. What this seems to be is a push by Google Scholar to enter the Discovery Service market as a closed service, in competition with services like Summon, Primo Central, etc. In short, “Google does not make it easy for others to build applications on top of Google Scholar, i.e. by providing APIs to allow third party access — the way they do for Google search or Google Maps.” It is possible that Google Scholar’s agreements with some journal publishers forbid them from opening their citation data by releasing their API. This explains the deal with Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is positioned to increase the traffic to Web of Science. Crucially, given universities’ increasing reliance on metrics and impact factors, they will maintain their primacy in determining impact factor. In the end, librarians may get a discovery platform that is user friendly, but is still a closed system.

Creating closed systems such as this is damaging to libraries and to end users because libraries

want to try and take our content and services — purchased from a variety of different vendors — and present them to our users as if it were one single ‘app’, one single environment, as if the library were one single business.  This makes matters more complicated, but it also makes this ‘de-coupling’ of UX [user experience] layer from underlying content and services — even more important. Because if the content and services we purchase from various vendors are tied only to those vendors own custom interfaces and platforms, there’s no way to present it to users as a unified integrated whole. (How would you feel about Amazon or Netflix if they made you use one website for Science Fiction, and a completely different website that looked and behaved completely differently for History?).

Whether the citation indexing system is Google Scholar or Web of Science, it is closed either way, in that it does not allow libraries to use the data to create customized user interface platforms, as the above post argues. Furthermore, there is always the danger of a for-profit service ending (like Google Reader) or going out of business. Also, such systems may be priced out of the range of many educational institutions, even though the data they gather is ultimately produced by those educational institutions. While Thomson Reuters reversed their decision in this case, it is important going forward that there are conversations about the need for an open system, where scholars can quantitatively analyze and reuse citation data for research, as well as evaluate the algorithm the citation system uses to rank results.

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/26/web-of-science-google-scholar-and-citation-indexing-systems/feed/ 0
Bibliography for 09/25 Discussion on the Scholarly Monograph & University Presses http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/20/bibliography-for-0925-discussion-on-the-scholarly-monograph-university-presses/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/20/bibliography-for-0925-discussion-on-the-scholarly-monograph-university-presses/#respond Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:41:10 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=31 Compiled by Clarke Iakovakis

Association of American University Presses. (2011). Sustaining scholarly publishing: New business models for university presses. New York.

Bargheer, M. & Schmidt, B. (2008). Gottingen University Press: Publishing services in an open access environmentInformation Services & Use 28, 133-139. doi:10.3233/ISU-2008/0569

Crewe, J. (2004). Scholarly publishing: Why our business is your business tooProfession, 25-31.

Dalton, M. S. (2009). The publishing experiences of historians. In Greco, A. N. (Ed.), The state of scholarly publishing: Challenges and opportunities. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.

Donoghue, F. (2008). The last professors : The corporate university and the fate of thehumanities. New York: Fordham University Press.

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence. New York: New York University Press.

Greco, A. N., Jones, R. F., Wharton, R. M., & Estelami, H. (2007). The changing college and university library market for university press books and journals: 1997-2004. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(1), 1-32. doi:10.3138/jsp.39.1.1

Howard, J. (2013). For new ideas in scholarly publishing, look to the library. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(22), 20-20.

Jagodzinski, C. M. (2008). The university press in North America: A brief history. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(1), 1-20. doi:10.3138/jsp.40.1.1

McGreal, R., Chen, N.S., & McNamara, T. A comparison of an open access university press with traditional presses: Two years laterInformation Services & Use, 31, 211-214. doi:10.3233/ISU-2012-0650

Morrison, H. (2009). Scholarly communication for librarians. Oxford: Chandos Pub.

Steele, C. (2008). Scholarly monograph publishing in the 21st century: The future more than ever should be an open bookJournal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2). doi:10.3998/3336451.0011.201

Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access

Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the digital age: The transformation of academic and highereducation publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Vincent, N. (2013). The monograph challenge. In Vincent, N. & Wickham, C. (Eds.), Debating open access. London: British Academy.


CC0


To the extent possible under law,

Clarke Iakovakis

has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to
Bibliography for 09/25 Discussion on the Scholarly Monograph & University Presses.
This work is published from:

United States
.

Note: This content previously published HERE

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/20/bibliography-for-0925-discussion-on-the-scholarly-monograph-university-presses/feed/ 0
History Brownbag: The Historical Profession, Open Access & Scholarly Communication http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/19/history-brownbag-the-historical-profession-open-access-scholarly-communication/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/19/history-brownbag-the-historical-profession-open-access-scholarly-communication/#respond Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:44:49 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/?p=23

Recently the AHA (American Historical Association) released a Statement on Policies Regarding the Embargoing of Completed History PhD Dissertations. This position sparked quite a bit of discussion, on ETDs and embargoes as well as on larger issue around Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and tenure.


Below we have gathered selected quotes from a variety of responses, with the intention of giving an introduction to this conversation before the Department of History Brownbag Series talk on 9/25/13 .


In addition to this blog entry, we also request that you please take a moment to read this overview on Open Access and the Historical Profession

Topics for this brown bag are as follows:

  • Scholarly Communication
  • Open access
  • ETDs & Embargoes

Transformations in Scholarly Communication

“The problem is that the apparent economic imperatives of the academic publishing industry run directly counter to a central value of our profession: the open dissemination of historical knowledge.”

The percentage of university funds allocated to academic libraries shrank for the 14th straight year in 2009, dipping below 2 percent for the first time, according to updated figures from the Association of Research Libraries.”

“Just because the existing scholarly publishing system has served the academy fairly well in the past does not mean that it has an intrinsic right to continue to exist in perpetuity. It should not, and must not, become a barrier to our aspirations and our innovations. If the day has come when the scholarly publishing system impedes scholarship, teaching, and learning it should—indeed must—be replaced by a new and more responsive system. As Don Waters of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation famously reminded us, “It’s the scholarship stupid.”We need to remember what’s really important here, and what our ultimate goals are.”

Cliff Lynch as cited in Scholarly Monograph Publishing in the 21st Century: The Future More Than Ever Should Be an Open Book


Prioritizing the print book in the Historical Profession

Library budgets are decreasing, as serial publication costs are increasing exponentially. In order to cover their expenditures on serials, many libraries are cutting their book budgets, which in turn causes University Presses to cut their acquisition budgets or to look for texts that will have crossover appeal.

“One university press director commented,  “Some manuscripts, even if published electronically as dissertations, are appealing regardless of their electronic availability because the audience for them  in print form is substantial enough that  it does not matter. There is a substantial market for certain works of Civil War history, for instance, that is quite broad. The lay readership for Civil War history,  for instance, wants to have the book and would not likely know or have access to the text in dissertation (electronic) form. Even if they knew, they would likely still want the book.”

“On the side of the library, Duke University’s Scholarly Communication Officer Kevin Smith twice addresses the misinformed claim that academic libraries, the primary market for academic monographs, are purchasing less books based on the open availability of dissertations. He points out the AHA’s lack of substantial evidence to support their claims, and argues that more likely, less books are being purchased due to shrinking budgets, and the need to support broad curricular resources not specific academic niches.”

“Since 1996, history was—by one measure—the only field where university presses produced more than 40 percent of all new titles.”

via History and the Future of Scholarly Publishing. This entry was written in 2003 about how the field’s reliance on academic presses “could become a critical problem in the coming years, if many junior faculty members can’t publish their first books.” The issues the author pointed out have only become more pressing in the intervening years, and this article makes no mention of ETD or Open Access.

via ARL Statistics 2010-11

“The Historical Profession, the Book, Embargoes, and Open Access”

“…the book has in many ways become an end to itself.  Rather than creating research outputs that are best suited to content and audience, academic historians must produce a particular kind of object.  The effects of this are not inconsequential.  Promotion and tenure committees within academic institutions have little impetus to reconsider the markers and measures of academic quality.  As such, non-traditional research outputs –  including those produced in open access formats, such as blogs, data sets, and websites — are not only devalued, but most promotion and tenure committees have poor measures in place to assess them.  It is this, rather than any threat to publishing prospects, that threatens the success of junior scholars who might be eager to produce scholarship in the open access environment.  Likewise, the open access movement has much in common with the aims of Public History, a field in which openness and accessibility play a prominent role and in which research outputs diverge from traditional academia.  Prioritizing the book over other forms of scholarship reinforces a division between those who produce work for other scholars and those who produce work for and with the public when, in fact, both academic historians and public historians should be producing work for and with other scholars and the public.”

What is Open Access?

“Open access is a broad term that describes the principles, practices, and movements associated with the attempt to make information, especially digital information, freely available.  For many open access advocates, the desire to share knowledge is a socio-political project.  At its core is the the principal of global social equality in which everybody, regardless of background, should have equal access to knowledge.”

“What open access isn’t, of course, is an attempt to seize the intellectual property of dissertators, nor is it a tool to facilitate plagiarism. Nor is open access an attempt to prevent new PhDs from pursuing a career in academia. As Kelly points out, the evidence that publishers choose not to work with scholars whose dissertations are available via open access is very weak indeed, perhaps even non-existent….In a cogent response to the AHA’s policy statement, editors at Harvard University Press pointed out the obvious: if you can’t find a dissertation, you can’t sign a dissertation.”

Past examples of technology, the Historical Profession & anecdotal evidence

“The historian in me, of course, looks for past examples of how technology has changed the way we work—often for the better. And in the controversy over open access, I remembered the blog hysteria of 2005…. That summer, an academic going by the pseudonym ‘Ivan Tribble’ wrote a column in the Chronicle of Higher Education warning of doom to all job seekers who chose to also blog. Tribble indicted blogs for not being peer-reviewed and therefore also illegitimate as forms of disseminating scholarly knowledge. The response to Tribble’s (rather inane) column in higher education hiring circles was pretty dire. I went to a forum for job candidates that fall during which the facilitator begged us to delete everything about ourselves from the internet and to never, ever post pictures of our cats. In other words, the anecdotal experience of one person who could not even share his name with the world suddenly became concrete evidence that within the blogging world, the sky was falling. The rumor spread: blogging damaged one’s chances at an academic job.”

ETDs & Libraries

Expanding on the library’s voice in this discussion, the anonymous Library Loon writes,“…the academic library’s central mission with dissertations produced on its campus is the dissemination thereof.  (The records-management, cataloging, and preservation functions twine neatly into this mission, of course.) Open access to etds, and advocacy for open-access etd policies, clearly fulfill the library’s mission.”The university library’s role, now more than ever, includes advocating for author’s rights and supporting the broad reach of scholarship to the benefit of faculty authors, emerging and senior. Its not our place to get in the middle of disciplinary modes of research, but to suggest that they have the opportunity to be reinvented, for the good of the discipline. In terms of the dissertation, the library serves not only as a preservation and access agent, but also the legal and ethical one, ensuring the evidence of the scholarly record at our particular institution… In the case of AHA vs. ETDs, the inherent miscommunications between acquisitions editors at university presses, faculty advisors in academic departments and subject-specialist librarians has led to a battle between them and the emerging scholar, over policies dictated by the administrative body of the Graduate School. … Too long the system has leaned in favor of the middlemen, rather than for the creators and consumers of knowledge.”

ETDs & Publishers

“Audience is a key consideration for university presses: ‘We normally consider theses or dissertations for publication only if the author is willing to revise them for a broader audience; this is our practice regardless of the availability of an ETD.’”

“Publishers continue to comment on the lemming-like rush of doctoral students to try to get their dissertations published. The blunt fact is that the vast majority of doctoral students in the social sciences and humanities will never see their theses published in traditional monographic form by university presses. Australia alone has around 35,000 students undertaking doctorates by research. The vast majority of theses in the social sciences and humanities are of no commercial interest and only a small minority can be rewritten for a general trade readership. Students would be better served by their supervisors advising them to make their theses available on the Internet through the various national digital theses programs.”

Position of current graduate students in the discipline of History

“Let me start by saying that I entirely understand why individual graduate students want to embargo their dissertations and I don’t question their decisions to do so.  A recent study seems to suggest that, while most university presses are still willing to consider publishing books based on openly accessible dissertations, a significant minority will not.  And given the incredibly difficult professional situation in which new PhDs in history find themselves today, they cannot be faulted for doing what they must to maximize their chances for professional success.But as Rauchway and others have pointed out, a situation that effectively forces young scholars to keep their work out of circulation is fundamentally bad for the profession…and for young scholars themselves.  Faced with the dual crises of academic hiring and academic publishing, our best response as a profession is not to try to approximate a status quo ante that is unlikely to return, especially if doing so discourages the dissemination of historical work, as the embargo strategy does”

“I am not defending the AHA’s statement, per se. It does indeed ignore the broader issue of what the AHA intends to do about the long-term, systemic problem of the undue influence and interest of university press publishers in the profession and the profession’s transition into the digital era, more generally. I am, however, going to defend the policy of allowing students the option to embargo.The profession is in a liminal moment. That is, while the rest of society and many professions have moved into the digital realm, the academic history profession has not. Historians have taken it upon themselves to bring our work and other perspectives into the digital world. There are exciting new digital history projects being created all the time. But the administrative structure of the profession (i.e., universities, departments, university presses, and professional organizations) has been much slower to adapt to the digital environment. This disconnect between practicing academic historians and the administrative structure of the profession has led to some of the frustrations with the AHA and the profession, more generally.…All that said, as an academic history blogger and podcaster and a proponent of digital humanities, I am especially concerned with the profession becoming more digitally proactive and with issues of how we define the dissertation and the practices of hiring and tenure committees. Nevertheless, dealing with the present does not preclude one from also working toward improving the future. The AHA has done the former; now, it must do the latter.”


Graduate Students at UTA & the ResearchCommons

Currently, graduate students can choose an embargo of 6 months, 1 year, or up to 2 years

Resources & Guidelines:

9/25/13 ETA

For Profit Publishing

Elsevier Fact Sheet According to The Economist, Elsevier made $1.1 billion in profit in 2010 for a profit margin of 36%. T&F’s profit margin is 25%, per T&F.”

“I did not initially pay much attention when publisher John Wiley announced early in Septemberthat they would impose download limits on users of their database “effective immediately.” …. And it also reminded me that the best weapon against unilateral decisions that harm scholarship and research is to stop giving away the IP created by our faculty members to vendors who deal with it in costly and irresponsible ways.  One of the most disturbing things about the original announcement is Wiley’s reference to “publishers’ IP.”  Wiley, of course, created almost none of the content they sell; they own that IP only because it has been transferred to them.  If we could put an end to that uneven and unnecessary giveaway, this constant game of paying more for less would have to stop.

via An odd anouncement by Kevin Smith, J.D.

And it also reminded me that the best weapon against unilateral decisions that harm scholarship and research is to stop giving away the IP created by our faculty members to vendors who deal with it in costly and irresponsible ways.  One of the most disturbing things about the original announcement is Wiley’s reference to “publishers’ IP.”  Wiley, of course, created almost none of the content they sell; they own that IP only because it has been transferred to them.  If we could put an end to that uneven and unnecessary giveaway, this constant game of paying more for less would have to stop. – See more at: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2013/09/20/an-odd-anouncement/#sthash.0eTjcT27.dpuf

And it also reminded me that the best weapon against unilateral decisions that harm scholarship and research is to stop giving away the IP created by our faculty members to vendors who deal with it in costly and irresponsible ways.  One of the most disturbing things about the original announcement is Wiley’s reference to “publishers’ IP.”  Wiley, of course, created almost none of the content they sell; they own that IP only because it has been transferred to them.  If we could put an end to that uneven and unnecessary giveaway, this constant game of paying more for less would have to stop. – See more at: http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2013/09/20/an-odd-anouncement/#sthash.0eTjcT27.dpuf

Open Book Publishers

UNT Press

Open Access Academic Publishing: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and How to Use It

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC): Open Access

9/26/13 ETA Bibliography for 09/25 Discussion on the Scholarly Monograph & University Presses

Q&A

If you have any questions on Scholarly Communication, you can email us at

LIBRARY-SC@listserv.uta.edu

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/19/history-brownbag-the-historical-profession-open-access-scholarly-communication/feed/ 0
Hello http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/02/hello/ http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/02/hello/#respond Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:41:01 +0000 http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/02/hello/ In Summer of 2013, the Libraries at UT Arlington underwent a reorganization. During this reorganization, we implemented a new focus on Scholarly Communication.

This blog will discuss scholarly communication issues in a broad sense and as they specifically relate to our campus and libraries as well as documenting  our projects.

About Us

Scholarly Communication Website

]]>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/2013/11/02/hello/feed/ 0
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/feed/
blog.uta.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
68118
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZDIVWB67SM56GFISS6X47T4FHXARJR7S
<urn:uuid:c3eefb00-431a-4ab6-a02a-b3876bbc3c1a>
2017-05-25T16:51:54Z
209.15.19.172
application/rss+xml
sha1:XXU53LEC66GLPUH6FQFWKLI4VR73RJS7
<urn:uuid:0a0cc659-30eb-4496-93ed-b789ea77b2c3>
http://blog.uta.edu/scholcomm/feed/
length
response
<urn:uuid:5695c6ba-a5ea-4520-8e0a-b094e7a90f87>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf