Global Adoption of Electronic Theses and Dissertations :
“Electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) are a relatively new mode of research and scholarly
communication. Lippincott states that an ETD program provides a process, standards, and software to
automate functions, as well as a digital infrastructure for access and preservation (Lippincott, 2006). As a primary source of information, theses and dissertations are particularly useful to researchers, but many languish in obscurity in university libraries and archives. Digital library technologies have helped ETDs gain momentum (Jin, 2004). Theses submitted in support of a PhD are difficult to access, as they are only collected by the library of the university that granted the degree. ETDs can be easily located, readily accessible, and delivered over the Web (Vijaykumar and Murthy, 2001). Most university libraries are very enthusiastic about electronic theses, but thesis supervisors and university administrators have sometimes been less keen on the idea. In most cases, it is necessary to change university regulations in order to require students to deposit an electronic copy of their thesis, which can be a time-consuming and frustrating process (Greig, 2005). This paper attempts to view the status of use and adoption of ETDs in various different parts of the world, and gives a brief history of ETDs, key issues governing ETD projects, potential merits of ETDs, with a glimpse on ETD initiatives in India.”
URL : http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/dillip-swain.pdf
Authors publication strategies in scholarly publishing :
“In this exploratory study, we analyze publishing patterns of authors from different disciplines, as part of a broader analysis of the transformation of the scholarly publishing industry. Although a growing body of literature analyses the author’s role within the process of research production, validation, certification and dissemination, there is little systematic empirical research on publishing patterns; little therefore can be said on relevant issues within the current debate on the future of scholarly publishing such as authors’ responses to (or even awareness of) the growing array of publication possibilities or the speed of adaptation to the increasing series of incentives by funding agencies or academic institutions. On the basis of the analysis of three years of publications gathered in the institutional repository of Università degli Studi di Milano, we highlight trends of publication strategies and different responses to incentive systems. Preliminary results indicate that publication outcomes and intensity differ across disciplines, while similarities occur mainly in terms of choice of preferred outcomes by seniority. Open access is still uncommon among the authors in our sample and it is more utilized by relatively senior authors and active authors.”
URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/18976/
The Book of MPub :
“The Book of MPub curates research and critical thinking from students in the Master of Publishing program at Simon Fraser University. In doing so, it makes a contribution to a collective discourse on innovative technologies in publishing—epublishing, new business models, and crowd sourcing and social media. The Book of MPub furthers discussion in three formats: blog, ebook and the classic, ever-evocative print form. The experimental process is itself research, and both documentation of the insights gained and the final product are comprehensive resources for the publishing industry at large.”
URL : http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/the-book-of-mpub/12041531
Data Sharing, Latency Variables and the Science Commons :
“Over the past decade, the rapidly decreasing cost of computer storage and the increasing prevalence of high-speed Internet connections have fundamentally altered the way in which scientific research is conducted. Led by scientists in disciplines such as genomics, the rapid sharing of data sets and cross-institutional collaboration promise to increase scientific efficiency and output dramatically. As a result, an increasing number of public “commons” of scientific data are being created: aggregations intended to be used and accessed by researchers worldwide. Yet, the sharing of scientific data presents legal, ethical and practical challenges that must be overcome before such science commons can be deployed and utilized to their greatest potential. These challenges include determining the appropriate level of intellectual property protection for data within the commons, balancing the publication priority interests of data generators and data users, ensuring a viable economic model for publishers and other intermediaries and achieving the public benefits sought by funding agencies.
In this paper, I analyze scientific data sharing within the framework offered by organizational theory, expanding existing analytical approaches with a new tool termed “latency analysis.” I place latency analysis within the larger Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, as well as more recent variations of that framework. Latency analysis exploits two key variables that characterize all information commons: the rate at which information enters the commons (its knowledge latency) and the rate at which the knowledge in the commons becomes be freely utilizable (its rights latency). With these two variables in mind, one proceeds to a three-step analytical methodology that consists of (1) determining the stakeholder communities relevant to the information commons, (2) determining the policy objectives that are relevant to each stakeholder group, and (3) mediating among the differing positions of the stakeholder groups through adjustments to the latency variables of the commons.
I apply latency analysis to two well-known narratives of commons formation in the sciences: the field of genomics, which developed unique modes of rapid data sharing during the Human Genome Project and continues to influence data sharing practices in the biological sciences today; and the more generalized case of open access publishing requirements imposed on publishers by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and various research universities. In each of these cases, policy designers have used timing mechanisms to achieve policy outcomes. That is, by regulating the speed at which information is released into a commons, and then by imposing time-based restrictions on its use, policy designers have addressed the concerns of multiple stakeholders and established information commons that operate effectively and equitably. I conclude that the use of latency variables in commons policy design can, in general, reduce negotiation transaction costs, achieve efficient and equitable results for all stakeholders, and thereby facilitate the formation of socially-valuable commons of scientific information.”
URL : http://works.bepress.com/jorge_contreras/3
Copyright and Open Access for Academic Works :
“In a recent paper, Prof. Steven Shavell (see Shavell, 2009) has argued strongly in favor of eliminating copyright from academic works. Based upon solid economic arguments, Shavell analyses the pros and cons of removal of copyright and in its place to have a pure open access system, in which authors (or more likely their employers) would provide the funds that keep journals in business. In this paper we explore some of the arguments in Shavell’s paper, above all the way in which the distribution of the sources of journal revenue would be altered, and the feasible effects upon the quality of journal content. We propose a slight modification to a pure open access system which may provide for the best of both the copyright and open access worlds.”
URL : http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24095/
The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) provided support for a feasibility study, to outline one possible approach to measuring the impacts of the proposed US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) on returns to public investment in R&D. The aim is to define and scope the data collection requirements and further model developments necessary for a more robust estimate of the likely impacts of the proposed FRPAA open archiving mandate.
Preliminary modeling suggests that over a transitional period of 30 years from implementation, the potential incremental benefits of the proposed FRPAA archiving mandate might be worth between 4 and 24 times the costs. Perhaps two-thirds of these benefits would accrue within the US, with the remainder spilling over to other countries. Hence, the US national benefits arising from the proposed FRPAA archiving mandate might be of the order of 16 times the costs.
Exploring sensitivities in the model we find that the benefits exceed the costs over a wide range of values. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any plausible values for the input data and model parameters that would lead to a fundamentally different answer.
These preliminary estimates are based on the information available to us at the time of writing. They are released in conjunction with an online model, which enables others to explore their own preferred values for the various parameters.
URL : http://sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/vufrpaa.pdf
Who owns our work? :
“Much turmoil in the scholarly-communication ecosystem appears to revolve around simple ownership of intellectual property. Unpacking that notion, however, produces a fascinating tangle of stakeholders, desires, products and struggles. Some products of the research process, especially novel ones, are difficult to fit into legal concepts of ownership. As collaborative research burgeons, traditional ownership and authorship criteria are stretched to their limits and beyond, with many contributors still feeling short of due credit. The desire for access and impact brings institutions and grant funders into the formerly exclusive relationship between authors and publishers. Librarians, stripped of first-sale rights by electronic licensing, wonder about both access and long-term preservation. Emerging solutions to many of these difficulties threaten to cut publishers out of the picture altogether, perhaps a welcome change to those stakeholders who find publishers’ behavior to block progress.”
URL : http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/45742/SaloSerials.pdf?sequence=1