Raymond Pun, Sai Deng, and Guoying (Grace) Liu on the challenge of advocating for diversity, equity and inclusion within scholarly communications when your own institution isn’t “there” yet.
A recent opinion paper by Richard Poynder @rickypo offers analysis and prognostication with regard to the current state and future prospects of #openaccess and the open access movement.
An author found that the relevant journals were unwilling to publish an article of historical research that found evidence for a surprising and somewhat controversial proposition about the founding of the University of Utah. So what did she decide to do with her article? Something rather unusual, it turns out.
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
Yesterday, Ithaka S+R published findings from our triennial survey of library deans and directors at academic institutions in the United States. The report examines the strategic directions of academic libraries as well as their staffing and spending plans for the coming years. The pivot towards new research, teaching, and learning services, and towards distinctive collections, is continuing, although it is encountering some headwinds.
The broad online availability of theses and dissertations creates difficult tensions between the individual rights of authors, the rights of educational institutions, and the responsibilities that both have to global scholarship and the collective good. How can we resolve those tensions?
ROARMAP, a deeply flawed and often misleading international registry of open access “mandates,” has now been completely revamped–and the result is a much more informative and reliable resource.
In the final part of a series on library publishers, Phill Jones explores the relationship between library publishing and institutional repositories against a background of funder data sharing mandates.
A particularly pervasive type of error in the ROARMAP registry seems designed to give the impression that many institutional OA policies are more mandatory than they really are. What purpose does this serve?
When does it make sense to call an Open Access policy a “mandate” — and when does it constitute unhelpful exaggeration?
Are author manuscripts in institutional repositories “good enough” for public consumption?
The disintermediation of publishers and libraries is more difficult than many suppose, as each link in the value chain does in fact add value to the process of scholarly communications.