Make your own free website on Tripod.com
« December 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Related Links
DASER Home
ASIST
Digital Archives for Science & Engineering Resources (DASER) Blog
Sunday, 4 December 2005
Feedback, evaluation, wrap-up
Mood:  chatty
Notes by Christina Pikas
Bob Kelly: APS focus groups

ML:
presentations up on the web page
list of participants out to the participants

evaluation of process and structure:
David - usually the best part of a conference is in the hallway, I feel like I've been in the hallway the whole time. This is a really good thing and it made it more interactive and a think tank... good people and the right people for the discussion.

Eating all of our meals together is a good thing. Have roundtable discussion topics at lunch

Good having a single track so we could see everything.

Presentations were easy to follow.

Suggestion -- Charleston model w/action items

Link to presentations. Also fewer speakers with more time to each speaker is better and more useful.

Wasn't well enough advertised.

Liked the tight focus.

Introductions are good.

Get a speaker who's not for open access (ML tried and was turned town)

She was expecting more technical presentations

Where are the blog notes available?

Get questions at meals, then have a program in the evening that addresses those questions.

Different seating arrangements.

Backchannel comms. Better wireless. Better power.

Affordable hotel.

Posted by asistdaser at 1:17 PM EST
Updated: Sunday, 4 December 2005 1:36 PM EST
David Stern, Yale: STM Libraries in the Future: Quo Vadis
Mood:  quizzical
Purposeful abandonment

Notes by Christina Pikas
Stern_2_120405
We live in a world of conflicts

we answer to faculty and administration
we love books, but don't buy a lot

mutually exclusive expectations
convenience vs. enhanced navigation
more options creates confusion
customization vs. personalization

administration
economies

industry
standards vs. branding
ease of use across platforms, consistency of icons/metaphors

environmental challenges
federation vs harvesting
package plan vs unbundling items
seamless pre-paid vs. transaction vs. tiered
IR - oa or archival
individual archives or consortial?
competing info resources
google/scholar easy vs. comprehensive

worldcat/sakai
-appropriate tools
-which inspec, holdings for pubmed

Incorporating multi-media
-teaching tools
-large datasets

KM
-personal/lab databases (lab results, local storage of group knowledge, links to published literature)
-data manipulation (not just pdf, repurposing of raw data, permissions)

Facilities
-create quiet rooms
-keyboard noises
-new group study spaces (just higher noise, technology, food/social)
-24x7

Self-archiving
IRs need to deal with unpublished, non-peer reviewed materials as well as peer-reviewed journal articles. (conf proceedings, white papers, technical reports)

searching these distributed archives is far from perfect
hybrid journals aren't well handled by link resolvers
(permissions are handled at the journal level, not at the article level)

strictly preservation archives
-lockss, dmca restrictions on sharing
-unnecessary redundancy/cost
-only saving pdfs (not data, not repurposable)

Portico (quality controls xml downloads from publishers, stores, metasearching, migration possibilities, runs on the JSTOR software)


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 12:58 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:37 PM EST
David L Osterbur: Drop Your Tools and Run Faster
Mood:  caffeinated
Notes by Christina Pikas
Osterbur_3_120405
Weik 1996 Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2):

Brown and Marek 2005 applied this in Library Admin and Mgmt 19(2): 68-74

Explanations for failure (to survive for firefighters in forest fire)
-listening (hearing, taking in, understanding that there's a different perspective)
-justification
-trust
-control
-skill at dropping
-admit failure (if you drop your tools you're admitting failure)
-social dynamics (following the crowd)
-consequences (proof that dropping tools will be a benefit)
-identity (how much is your identity tied up with those tools)
-replacement skill

Replacement skills
-bioinformatics support
big open access area, all of the data is available for free online... yet libraries aren't teaching these tools
-cheminformatics
who has control (luddites in control)
-adding value

Bioinformatics support
-we don't have to pay for, it's out there and used extensively
-no good service model for providing that support
-bioinformatics support groups don't have service mindsets -- they're researchers themselves and are interested in research, not in helping
-like driving school vs. building the car
-librarians like to search (librarians have a rich source of things to show users that users don't know about)
-libraries need to regain role

Why don't libraries do it?
- "we have a support group" (help the support group, provide a service they don't offer, enough information for everyone)
-no one trained in it
NLM offers regional introductory course
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/MLACourse/index.html
advanced course yearly in Bethesda (5 day 9-5 course)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/NAWBIS/index.html
13% of participants in the advanced course have humanities degrees.
-tricks of the trade... free full text textbooks other fab things that you can show in bioinformatics research
example: article re h5n1 increase virulence in mamals... sequence... blast... OR genbank, click on blink look up protein (never use keyword in genbank), gets to the point where he can show the differences between the 1918 pandemic flu virus and the avian flu currently of concern

can draw both sequences in 3d structure and see the differences (rotate, align, etc)

July in J MLA, article telling you how to do this and who is doing it... then just do it

Cheminformatics
ACS biggest provider (*cough* luddites)
Peter Murray-Rust
mass spec, machine readable vs. picture for pub or human understanding... also only give maxima

grad student takes 100 hours to take information away from what he has to
Chemical Markup Language (CML), XML markup... want to make searches for chemicals google-like... semantic grid for chemistry

Value Added
Notre Dame DSpace implementation services offered

Word about digital archives--
we won't be able to migrate fast enough (can't migrate all the data before it has to be migrated again)
Stuart Scheiber Microtome Publishing... ascii text

Conclusion
stay adaptable

from audience:
don't limit your constituency



Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 12:21 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:40 PM EST
Michael Leach, Harvard: Whither the collections? Whither the librarian?
Mood:  caffeinated
Notes by Christina Pikas
Leach_120405
Series of questions to the audience:
How many here work with S&T collections?
What % of collection development $ are serials?
What about the staff who had been employed to manage print collections?

To publishers, how do you want librarians to work with you?
Jan- free material needs to be cataloged, too. Role for librarians in financial setting - advocate open access to administrators who can pay for publication
Vivian- librarians discuss impact factor to administration, understand how the publishing industry works and work with publishers

Jan - q to librarians:
ARL used to derive status from the size of the budget -- librarians may not want the financial things taken away because it may impact status, is this an impact to you
a: yes... # of volumes (old school), budget collection vs. salary (ratio so that to lower collection budget but to hire librarians to manage free or less expensive eletronic resources would penalize you)

also to move money to other bugets to support authors publishing in oa from collection development budgets does take power away from the libraries -- we won't be selecting materials and providing access -- there will be universal access and all materials will be selected (maybe instruction)

BK: librarians have a key role in organizing information and new finding tools like folksonomies and other social software... especially with the proliferation of freely available information. Open access is a given. Tools to cross disciplines so physicists can see what biologists are saying... Librarians out of the stacks and into the world.

ML: he still sees a lot of his colleagues tied to their physical collections; but the e resources are so rich, so librarians need to be moving toward.
1) think beyond the traditional collections (even if e)
2) work closely with producers of materials (faculty, post-docs, etc), become a support mechanism for these researchers. Help them submit to journals. Help them submit to archives (oa, ir, etc).
3) teaching and advocating. more than information literacy... scholarly communication at all levels
4) google is a good thing. spend less money on OPACs and spend the money elsewhere
5) libraries as a whole do not put enough money into R&D: user needs analysis, develping user interfaces, marketing... this is left to third parties like vendors. (exception Rochester, has a staff anthropologist?!?) we are too passive, meek


audience:
BC: instruction... historically first course in cheminformatics included using the chemical literature but methods of presentation, ethics, intellectual property, knowledge of the prizes/awards... developing information fluency ...
"pardon me, is my eye hurting the end of your umbrella"
PW: library is not based on the physical space, we need to do value-added service, contextual support could be added to the repository... how about forming the citation for me?
T (from SPIRES): a lot of this is already going on, libraries have a tradition, being physically co-located with the library as a programmer is very important
P L-S: our library has already lost complete control of the budget. they are already there becase that's all they do, they don't manage collections



Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 11:45 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:42 PM EST
Tim Hays, NIH: NIH Public Access Policy
Mood:  caffeinated
Notes by Christina Pikas
Hays_120405
Announced in Feb, implemented in May. In PubMed Central

Goals
- archive of NIH research
- advance science
- access to the public

Driving Forces included Congress, new IT, increasing public use of the internet

56% of internet users bring documents with them when they visit the doctor's office (?!?)

Internal drivers: need archive to study the outcomes of funding efforts, make information available that they paid for on the public's behalf

The policy:
-0-12 month embargo
-peer-reviewed, original research publications, supported in whole or in with direct costs from NIH. Not book chapters, editorials, review, or conference proceedings.
-currently funded (or if accepted for publication after May..)
-does not affect copyright
-authors are encouraged to add a line to their publication agreement that says that they will submit to NIH
-should not effect peer review
-should not affect scientific publishing (1% journals in pubmed have more than 50% of their articles funded by NIH, 10% of the articles in pubmed were funded by NIH)
-has had some positive effect with journals now having a self-archiving policy
(audience comment that Nature is backsliding from 0 month self-archiving to 6 month self-archiving)

Timeline
Final policy 2/3/2005
System released 5/05
New website 10/05
by Feb/06 hope to have a batch upload function (they're working with Elsevier, Wiley, Nature)

Participation
About 2% to 3% (not including the 8% from PubMedCentral journals that are in there by default) as SH said this 10% mirrors the participation world-wide in self-archiving with no policy (or TLC from a librarian :) )

Delay/embargo
- about 60% immediate pub, 20% after 9-12 months
- Have removed 40 articles because of too early publication (from about 10 journals)

Issues with researchers who want/need to get published, but worry that the copyright negotiations may delay or prevent paper acceptance, plus figuring out funder policy, their institution policy...
NIH is doing outreach

Public Policy Working Group (11/15/2005)
Limited survey of 19 health sciences libraries... 87% of faculty were aware of the policy, 4% had submitted
Largest factors
-time
-priority
-confusion over copyright and version

Q from audience:
-make mandatory (this is being considered, but somewhat difficult because part of the regulatory process, also Dr. Zerhouni saw this as a way of changing the landscape -- did not want to cause bad will with groups with whom NIH cooperates)
-group doesn't include open access publishers

Working with publishers
-3rd party submissions
-Elsevier, Nature, Wiley submit directly (they control version, embargo)
-software tool for offline verification of grant numbers
-will post the publisher version over the author version, place links to the publisher site, correct author errors, place links to article correction notificationon the publishers web site
-will have xml and pdfs of all documents

Questions to the working group
1) should participation be mandatory - 12 out of 14 yes (two who said no, Elsevier (no, really?) and FASEB)
2) what should be the embargo?
A variety, many said 6months
3) what is the best version
publisher version, but not clear on whether xml or pdf

Next steps
-continue outreach
-evaluate
-batch uploading
-report to congress

From the audience:
sh: "flawed policy that missed historic opportunity... but can be improved" flaws: voluntary, let the word embargo be said, demand central deposit
should have done: request that the depost be made either in own IR or in PMC, then PMC can harvest automatically from IRs. make it into an instant deposit upon acceptance. build into metadata that shows up immediately - with e-mail to author to request e-print. NIH should also offer to pay reasonable publishing in open access

From Jan V: springer is not on committee, but should be mandatory, no embargo, both xml and pdf, explicitly say on the NIH page that it is OK for open access publishing to be covered by grants (Wellcome trust does this).

From Brad: mandatory is the important thing

From Mary: mandatory needs to happen that will really be transformative

From Paige: impact to publishers... what would it be if all of the large science funders in government (DOD, NASA, ... ) did this

From Peiling: theoretically mandatory is necessary, but getting the regulations in place is a long term thing... what if all new grants from this point forward have that requirement?

Vivian: meeting of publishers hosted by Blackwell where everyone got up and said how horrible this is... unnecessary duplication of what highwire pubs etc are doing...
Is there an analysis that shows if people can get to things that they would not have been able to get to otherwise... IOW, does it really make things available that aren't elsewhere available?
Answer: not enough content, plan to evaluate....


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture



Posted by asistdaser at 10:50 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:43 PM EST
Stevan Harnad, Southampton, U Q at Montreal: (no title)
Mood:  on fire
Notes by Christina Pikas
Harnad_120405

Data and slides available online and may be reused. There were slight technical difficulties.

Why do researchers publish?
Not for money but to communicate results

Open access is:
free, immediate, permanent, and full text online access
primarily peer reviewed journal articles, theses

Why?
Lawrence 2001, more citations to online articles than offline articles in the same venue (not open access effect)
To what extent were Lawrence's results only a CS effect? The compared OA vs. Non-OA in Astro
(he states that there are basically 12 astro journals, all astronomers are at institutions that cover these 12 at minimum, so to them there is open access) and other physics, sociology and biology.
http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

Lots of fast moving graphs here, based on a robot that gathered 1.4 million self-archived articles across about 10 fields (not phys, but does include some social sciences). Grouped articles by # of citations (in bins), then graphed for each bin, #articles for each pub year. Did the same for non-open access articles. Then took the ratio of one to the other, found (I believe and I think he'll correct me) that in general, open access articles are more highly cited across disciplines than non-open access articles.

Dollar value value of citation (a la Diamond 1986 and adjusted to current year money), $85/citation... The UK is losing 300k potential citations and 1.5B GBP based on the above calculations.

Research assessment, research funding, citation impact
All of the factors that are used to evaluate researchers and research groups.... correlate highly with citation counts. Citation counts would better highlight a really good article in a lesser journal.

Changing Citation Behavior
Peak of the curve is moving earlier and earlier. Citations may occur within 3 weeks of self-archiving (!) These charts come from citebase. Self-archiving has speeded up citation behavior, immediacy, and the movement of physics.

Open access - how?
Archives without an institutional self-archiving policy remain nearly empty.
What prevents us from open access in the form of self-archiving is keystrokes, not copyright

Awareness of author compliance (study?)
81% would willingly comply with self-archiving policy. 5 archives that have mandates are some of the largest (so this works) ... examples CERN, Southamption. University of Tasmania vs. Queensland productivity (?) +archives +librarian assistance +mandate ... (See upcoming D-lib article by Arthur Sale?)

388 institutional archives worldwide (they've found), vast majority are empty. In Germany every institution has an IR, but no policy (and sometimes no tender loving care)

Audience questions
a: Have the successful archives in the above mentioned Australian universities experienced citation effects?
a: early yet, but some

q: Infoglut or version control-
Will there be problems with too many versions... or access to the correct version
a: no, researchers just want the materials. researchers know what they're doing, what's a post-print, what's a pre-print, and what's good literature -- this is not done by librarians but is part of being a professional researcher

Robot -- didn't specify that articles were true OA, just that they were available online fulltext for free at the time of the crawl. Future work may try to address this

Q: about the wording of self-archiving... SH says that it's a supplement to subscription access.

Q: citation life cycle -- doesn't that bias this because articles might be self-archived only after they have proven to be good articles (I may have gotten this wrong sorry D.S.)
SH: they are studying latency, life cycle, immediacy


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture, correctly spell the speakers first name.

Posted by asistdaser at 9:56 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:46 PM EST
New day, smaller breakfast, we're all a bit sleepy...
Mood:  chillin'
Notes by Christina Pikas
Hope to be caffeinated by next post :)

Here we are at day two. A few people from yesterday haven't returned yet, but we've got a couple new people.

They'll talk about airport rides before break.

The wrap up session will have an evaluation component. This conference set up is a experimental.

Posted by asistdaser at 9:03 AM EST
Saturday, 3 December 2005
Peiling Wang, UTK: Research-related Use of Internet-enabled Information Resources
Mood:  on fire
Notes by Christina Pikas
Wang_120305
Preliminary study, but she believes that it will scale up. Standard deviation is very small.

Purpose
- identify interdisciplinary differences in the use of internet-enabled information resources for research (not just technology rich or poor, rather, the type and nature of the research)
- identify factors affecting use or nonuse of these resources
- influence design

Research Questions
- which internet information technologies are used in research
- who are these technologies used in information seeking (model of 6 types of information seeking (Ellis?))
- how important are each

Research Design
- indepth f2f interviews
- semi-structured questions (her guide is available ask her)
(for how does each tech type support each of the 6 of Ellis' types, plus one more type: organizing)
What percentage of your needs are met by electronic resources?
Chaining - forward or backward citation searching

Participants
Productive and active researchers (faculty and doctoral students):
Computer Science
Engineering
Information Science
Journalism
Humanities/Social Sciences (not yet complete)

In progress - 42 interviews right now

Preliminary results
- average 5-7
(sorry for the poor table)

importance cs eng is JEM
1 web db db web
2 email web web opac
3 e-j ftp e-j database
4 dlib opac opac email
5 opac email email e-j


What % e-resources? Eng highest, CS next, InfoSci next....

2 outliers
1-CS prof, 100% electronic
2-Journalism prof, 98% print

Factors affecting use:
- nature and type of research
- availablity of digital archives (humanities, historians)
- accessibility of digital archives
- awareness of the resources
- usability of the internet technology
- perception of source quality and reliability
- individual preferences & constraints

strategies
do not save (search again)
do not delete (periodically discard all)
create folders and subfolders
save multiple copies on multiple machines
keep a print copy of the digital documents
work group maintained collection

Implications
- information seeking in the digital age is easier for some but harder for others
- user tools for diverse users
- revamp the metaphor of folders
- provide easy access to digital objects at an atomic level (disaggregation)


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 5:25 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:51 PM EST
Marie Martens, BioMed Central: Open Access, Moving into the Mainstream
Mood:  a-ok
Notes by Christina Pikas
Martens_120305

Subject areas embracing open access
- bioinformatics
- cancer
- arthritis
- public health
- infectious diseases

senior authors believe article downloads more credible than citations (?)
(independent study by CIBER: http://www.ucl.ak.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf)

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"
Arthur Schopenhauer


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture, correct glaring spelling problem

Posted by asistdaser at 4:47 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:55 PM EST
Karla Hahn, Association of Research Libraries: Institutional Repositories, Emerging Frontiers for Policy Making
Mood:  not sure
Notes by Christina Pikas
Hahn_120305
She's citing Wikipedia :)

Diffusion of Innovations.
Pattern at which people adopt successful innovations .. Everett Rogers.

We're down at the beginning. Westrienen and Lynch D-Lib June 2005 (limitations on data), table, number of IRs per country, number of docs per IR. In September D-Lib, article by Lynch and Lippincott on US IRs.
(see:
Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005
Gerard van Westrienen, SURF Foundation; and Clifford A. Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information
doi:10.1045/september2005-westrienen

Institutional Repository Deployment in the United States as of Early 2005
Clifford A. Lynch and Joan K. Lippincott, Coalition for Networked Information
doi:10.1045/september2005-lynch)

Other work by Foster and Gibbons, Jan 2005 D-Lib

Three main barriers from Foster and Gibbons articles:
- our language, jargon... users don't know IR, metadata, etc
- time ... to find out about IR, understand why and how to use it...
- copyright

A la Clifford Lynch, IRs are sets of services, not softwares

"Never forget posterity when divising a policy. Never think of posterity when making a speech." Robert Menzies, former Prime Minister of Australia

Policies

Copyright
- authors do not understand their rights, options
- publishers encourage authors to regard as pro forma that they transfer all rights to the publisher
- practices are not consistent among authors, publishers

Peer review
- chicken - egg, get content to look at quality, look at quality to get content
- this is more than just being peacocks, it's their bread and butter, life and death of their careers

New models for scientific works
- MIT CogNet
- Real Climate
- Columbia Earthscape

Digital data
- more on long-lived data (mentioned at ASIS&T, read document here)
- data management plans

Commercialization and content control
- previously, limiting access to make money
- we are not home free

Investment - who pays?

Threats
- underinvestment (investment in science scholarly communication systems has not kept pace with funding in science... can't keep cancelling journals to build repositories, that is not sustainable)
- copyright over-management, under-management
- commercialization

Opportunities
- good that we've jumped on this in new and potentially risky roles, and taken this as a job for librarians

Comment from the audience
- tension also exists between roles as editors, authors, researchers (within the same person)

Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 3:51 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 12:56 PM EST
Leslie Johnston, UVa: Repository Development at the University of Virginia Library
Mood:  sharp
Notes by Christina Pikas

She is discussing a curated digital library. It's been around since 2003.

Fedora: Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture

Not an out-of-the-box repository, it's the underlying toolkit that is a Digital Asset Management architecture (Mellon funded, UVa and Cornell, for the software development, but not for their implementation)

Assumptions
- part of a global network of repositories
- all media types
- searching and browsing equally important
- curated
- primary users UVa community, they do have restricted content
- they'd like to have all digital collections in this repository

Process
Phase I, 2003, prototype
- electronic texts from the library's special collections
- art architecture ...
- got a lot of feedback (130 comments), they categorized, ranked, prioritized them
- number one comment: have more stuff

Phase II, Fall 2004 (final for Fall 2006)
See her article in D-lib for information on testing.

What did it take?
Standards
- ad hoc group documented production standards for media files
- metadata steering group documented local encoding practice, minimum standards, mapped various standards to the local standard
- community digitization standards

Content production
- subject librarians select, with technical assessment (ease of production, need for metadata enrichment, time constraints such as instructional deadlines, funding)
- centralized digital library production service (w/7.5 FTE plus student "scanning monkeys")
- new software tools and scripts

Development
- working groups for functional requirements
- functional requirements and analysis of media files and metadata to document content models (classes of objects and behaviors and mechanisms)
- processes for ingest
- interface
- search

Technology

Developers
- they had no budget
- they borrowed people from other parts of the library

Library Content
- huge queue of stuff to be done
- science stuff (herbarium images, glass astro slides from the parallax project)

Faculty Content
- born digital
- digital humanities projects

Support- librarians, programmers

D. Stern - seems intimidating, but it only took 3 programmers 2 weeks to be able to add info

Posted by asistdaser at 3:10 PM EST
Marie Martens, BioMed Central: Open Repository
Mood:  spacey
(spacey as in dspace :) )

Notes by Christina Pikas

They are basically a hosting facility for Dspace for institutions that can't host in-house (openrepository.com).

Services
- complete set up within 3 months
- technical support
- hosting

In-house solution has a lot of hidden costs. They have predictable costs -- set-up and maintenance.

The hierarchy is communities and collections. She then went through what it looks like to upload papers and showed an example implementation at UConn.

According to Stevan Harnad, the trouble isn't setting up the software, it's getting the content. (he talked about http://www.eprints.org/, his product, which also offers hosting)

Question from Vivian Siegal - would I have to submit three times - to the journal, to the NIH repository, to my institution? -- no they have automatic feeds.




Posted by asistdaser at 2:29 PM EST
Mary Steiner, Penn Library: The Toddler Years for ScholarlyCommons@Penn
Mood:  chillin'
I've been forgetting to sign my posts so I will do it at the start and re-edit the others.
Notes from Christina Pikas
Steiner_120305

Why get into this business anyway?
(partial list, changes over discipline and over time)
- access to information, highlight student work, stable archives
- specific desire of a campus unit (at Penn, Eng.)
- campus climate (centralized, funding structure, top down vs. grassroots, relationship between IT/library/archives)
- improve visibility/stature of academic research and scholarly activity

Scope and Nature
- short term, where to start, pilot, seeding the repository
- long term, across campus, cooperation
- pilot: the best work from the School of Engineering & Applied Science, recent work, with the endorsement of the leadership

Implementation
- oversight (IT, cataloger, administration, license/copyright person from serials)
- they chose the PQ product to get a turn-key solution with less burden on library and university IT
- f/t only
- they took on the burden of copyright compliance (to encourage submissions without reading through and complying with extensive publisher-specific policies)
(according to Stevan Harnad, you can just put everything up, and make f/t only available to the institution where required, then provide author e-mail and suggest that outsiders send e-mail asking for e-print, then author can send an e-print from the repository)

Operations -- getting content
- submit via e-mail
- harvesting faculty web pages
- alerts on relevant databases, e-mail authors

Going public
- timed the launch (not over break)
- marketed via demos, write-ups, mailings, links, share statistics
- registered with search engines

Assessment


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture

Posted by asistdaser at 12:40 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 1:01 PM EST
Jeff Riedel, ProQuest: Alternative Models of Scholarly Communication
Mood:  caffeinated
Notes by Christina Pikas
Back after the break. Change in order, we're now on to sessions again...

Riedel_120305

Digital Commons is their product... current implementations, UConn, TexasTech....

Other products eprints at SOTON and Dspace. About 500 institutions now have institutional repositories. See http://www.oaister.org for a sample.

Right now
- majority of objects still text-based
- some disciplines are more likely than others
- discovery paths (75% general web search engines -- going right to the paper, 7% front door, 19% referral/e-mail/direct access). Google acces starts at about 90% and then drops to about 40% years later when the IR is established. OAI has very few referrals -- they've done a good job marketing to producers but not to users.

More on marketing OAI
- more content
- better tools can be built on oai, but haven't yet
- needs to be a part of federated search implementations

Challenges and answers
- content recruitment
- no pain for the researchers (yet!), they have to know that it will benefit them first
- regular e-mail reports (your paper has been downloaded x times)
- branded personal researcher pages (contribute to their egosystem)
- citation harvesting

Their product includes a journal publisher module with peer review management, etc.
- see Boston College, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations (open access)

The overlap of IR and OA
- Both eliminate costs with accessing scholarly info (really move the cost)
- Possible because of the internet

Bottom line-
This will not help the stranglehold publishers have on institutions (yep!) -- institutions still pay, maybe not the library.
"There's money in the system. You can move it around, but it can't disappear without a quality loss"


Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture and to sign the top

Posted by asistdaser at 11:51 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 1:02 PM EST
Vivian Siegel: Building an Open Access World
Notes by Christina Pikas
Siegel_2_120305
What it's like to launch an open access journal (she was at PLOS).

PLOS uses Berlin definition of Open Access -- not only to read, but to reuse content.

Why open access?
- matches the needs to the researchers as readers and authors
- matches the goals of the funders of the research
- best meets the publishing mandate to widely and rapidly disseminate information

Starting vs. Transitioning to OA
developing reputation vs. established reputation
building submissions, readership, usage (same as with any new journal) vs. established
no legacy data concerns vs. legacy data
can set expectations vs. legacy economics

Additional challenges at PLOS
Building an organization

Possible because of...
- philanthropy
- credibility within scientific community
- support from scientific and library communities

To build submissions...
- Kept an updated list of authors who had papers accepted
- Impact factor!

How to do you fund...
- philanthropy
- author charges
- memberships
- advertising
- commercial reprints
- a la BMJ - value-added material subscribers only, research open access
- print supports online

Costs to publishing
- copy editing
- figure manipulation
- professional editors
- front section
- fee waivers

How do you build an open access world?
- have open access options for traditional journals (like the PNAS model)
- front section subscription only (BMJ)
- put open access in researchers evaluation model
- put aside the money in the funding so that it can't be spent elsewhere.
- reduce the costs of publication (print on demand, more control and responsibility to authors for copy editing and figure manipulation, better open source publication management software)

Updated: 12/5 to add tag and picture, signature

Posted by asistdaser at 10:55 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005 1:04 PM EST

Newer | Latest | Older