The aim of this study was to establish the role of academic libraries in the context of open access (OA) journal publishing, based on the perceived needs of the journals and/or their editors. As a study sample, 14 OA journals affiliated to the University of Zürich, Switzerland, were taken. They were very different in nature, ranging from well-established society journals to newly founded titles launched by dedicated individuals. The study comprised two approaches: a comprehensive journal assessment and subsequent editor interviews.
The journal assessments evaluated the functionalities, ease of use, sustainability and visibility of the journal. The interviews were used to get additional background information about the journals and explore editors’ needs, experiences and viewpoints. The results show that journals affiliated to publishing houses or libraries are technically well provided for. Unaffiliated journals offer fewer functionalities and display some unconventional features, often described as innovations by the editors. More resources – financial or human – is seen by nearly all editors as the most pressing need and as a limitation to growth.
In comparison, IT/technical needs are mentioned much less often. The article also describes the launch of an Editors’ Forum, an idea suggested by the editors and implemented by the library. This Forum offered further valuable insight into the potential role of libraries, but also specifically addressed several of the editors’ needs as expressed in the interviews.
URL : Library support for open access journal publishing: a needs analysis
DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.256
The issue of who owns the copyright in works produced by academics during employment is not new. The practice is that academics, as authors – copyright creators, are routinely assigning the copyright for free to academic publishers in order to have their works published even though the production of such works might be said to be in the course of employment and therefore the copyright belonging to the employer (the university). A literature review will show only one side of the coin where – unsurprisingly – intellectual property (IP) scholars agree that they own the copyright in the works published during employment.
The other side of the coin is not usually discovered because employers are not IP experts and are not in the business of writing academic articles. However, the general belief of the management is that the universities own the copyright as employers. More recently, UK universities have to comply with new Open Access policies which basically requires that publicly-funded research should be freely accessible. The Gold Open Access model is preferred by many academic publishers whose business model relies on academics (actually their funders) paying article processing charges (APCs) while the Green Open Access model is preferred by the universities as being virtually free of any charges.
But since most of the research is publicly-funded, suddenly the issue of who owns the copyright in works produced by academics during employment becomes a very stringent one, not to mention expensive. This paper will discuss the problem of copyright ownership in academia and how the new Open Access policies might affect it. While it is possible to discuss copyright without mentioning Open Access, it would be quite difficult to discuss Open Access without mentioning copyright. A possible solution will be proposed and discussed in order to help universities comply with the new policies by using their preferred Green Open Access route.
URL : The implications of the new UK Open Access policies on the ownership of copyright in academic publishing
Alternative location : http://hdl.handle.net/1842/11682
Dramatic changes have occurred in both publishing and teaching in the last 20 years stemming from the digital and Internet revolutions. Such changes are likely to grow exponentially in the near future aided by the trend to open access publishing. This revolution has challenged traditional publishing and teaching methods that—largely but not exclusively due to cost—are particularly relevant to professionals in low and middle income countries.
The digital medium and the Internet offer boundless opportunities for teaching and training to people in disadvantaged regions. This article describes the development of the IACAPAP eTextbook of child and adolescent mental health, its use, accessibility, and potential impact on the international dissemination of evidence-based practice.
URL : International dissemination of evidence-based practice, open access and the IACAPAP textbook of child and adolescent mental health
URL : http://www.capmh.com/content/9/1/51
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current state of debates surrounding Open Access (OA) in non-STEM disciplines.
This paper uses a selective literature review and discussion methodology to give a representative summary of the state of the art.
Non-STEM disciplines persistently lag behind scientific disciplines in their approach to OA, if the teleology towards open dissemination is accepted. This can be attributed to a variety of economic and cultural factors that centre on the problem of resource allocation with respect to quality.
This paper will be of value to policymakers, funders, academics and publishers. The original aspect of the paper pertains to the identification of an anxiety of irrelevance in the humanities disciplines and a focus on “quality” in Open-Access publishing debates.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0103
The purpose of this paper is to explore the difference between Open Access and accessibility, to argue that accessibility is the most crucial feature, and to suggest some ways in which Open Access militates against accessibility.
Analysis of best practice by journals and monograph publishers is used to highlight the degree to which accessibility is enhanced by input from readers and editors. The expense of this, both real and hidden, is shown to be compatible only with difficulty with publishing methods where keeping costs low is essential, and Open Access alternatives that make available manuscripts “as submitted” are shown to make available less accessible scholarship.
Scholarship is markedly improved by referees and editors; the emphasis needs to be put on making available the most accessible scholarship, not on making more scholarship available.
Journals and publishers should concentrate on, and research councils and similar bodies insist upon, ensuring high quality critical review and editing, not cost-free access.
The debate on Open Access has put its emphasis in the wrong place. Rather than easier access to more scholarship, increased resource devoted to pre-publication review, revision and editing is the most important development to ensure the greatest advances in research and scholarship.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0083