Measuring Open Access Policy Compliance: Results of a Survey

Authors : Shannon Kipphut-Smith, Michael Boock, Kimberly Chapman, Michaela Willi Hooper

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, a significant number of institutions have adopted open access (OA) policies. Many of those working with OA policies are tasked with measuring policy compliance.

This article reports on a survey of Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) members designed to better understand the methods currently used for measuring and communicating OA policy success.

METHODS

This electronic survey was distributed to the COAPI member listserv, inviting both institutions who have passed an implemented policies and those who are still developing policies to participate.

RESULTS

The results to a number of questions related to topics such as policy workflows, quantitative and qualitative measurement activities and related tools, and challenges showed a wide range of responses, which are shared here.

DISCUSSION

It is clear that a number of COAPI members struggle with identifying what should be measured and what tools and methods are appropriate. The survey illustrates how each institution measures compliance differently, making it difficult to benchmark against peer institutions.

CONCLUSION

As a result of this survey, we recommend that institutions working with OA policies be as transparent as possible about their data sources and methods when calculating deposit rates and other quantitative measures.

It is hoped that this transparency will result in the development of a set of qualitative and quantitative best practices for assessing OA policies that standardizes assessment terminology and articulates why institutions may want to measure policies.

URL : Measuring Open Access Policy Compliance: Results of a Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2247

How are we Measuring Up? Evaluating Research Data Services in Academic Libraries

Authors : Heather L. Coates, Jake Carlson, Ryan Clement, Margaret Henderson, Lisa R Johnston, Yasmeen Shorish

INTRODUCTION

In the years since the emergence of federal funding agency data management and sharing requirements (http://datasharing.sparcopen.org/data), research data services (RDS) have expanded to dozens of academic libraries in the United States.

As these services have matured, service providers have begun to assess them. Given a lack of practical guidance in the literature, we seek to begin the discussion with several case studies and an exploration of four approaches suitable to assessing these emerging services.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

This article examines five case studies that vary by staffing, drivers, and institutional context in order to begin a practice-oriented conversation about how to evaluate and assess research data services in academic libraries.

The case studies highlight some commonly discussed challenges, including insufficient training and resources, competing demands for evaluation efforts, and the tension between evidence that can be easily gathered and that which addresses our most important questions.

We explore reflective practice, formative evaluation, developmental evaluation, and evidence-based library and information practice for ideas to advance practice.

NEXT STEPS

Data specialists engaged in providing research data services need strategies and tools with which to make decisions about their services. These range from identifying stakeholder needs to refining existing services to determining when to extend and discontinue declining services.

While the landscape of research data services is broad and diverse, there are common needs that we can address as a community. To that end, we have created a community-owned space to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and existing resources.

URL : How are we Measuring Up? Evaluating Research Data Services in Academic Libraries

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2226

Worth the Wait? Using Past Patterns to Determine Wait Periods for E-Books Released After Print

Author : Karen Kohn

This paper asks if there is an optimal wait period for e-books that balances libraries’ desire to acquire books soon after their publication with the frequent desire to purchase books electronically whenever feasible.

Analyzing 13,043 titles that Temple University Libraries received on its e-preferred approval plan in 2014–15, the author looks at the delays from the publication of print books to publication of their electronic versions. The analysis finds that most books on the approval plan are published electronically within a week of the print. Recommended wait periods are provided for different subjects.

URL : Worth the Wait? Using Past Patterns to Determine Wait Periods for E-Books Released After Print

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.35

Scaling Research Data Management Services Along the Maturity Spectrum: Three Institutional Perspectives

Authors : Cinthya Ippoliti, Amy Koshoffer, Renaine Julian, Micah Vandegrift, Devin Soper, Sophie Meridien

Research data services promise to advance many academic libraries’ strategic goals of becoming partners in the research process and integrating library services with modern research workflows. Academic librarians are well positioned to make an impact in this space due to their expertise in managing, curating, and preserving digital information, and a history of engaging with scholarly communications writ large.

Some academic libraries have quickly developed infrastructure and support for every activity ranging from data storage and curation to project management and collaboration, while others are just beginning to think about addressing the data needs of their researchers.

Regardless of which end of the spectrum they identify with, libraries are still seeking to understand the research landscape and define their role in the process.

This article seeks to blend both a general perspective regarding these issues with actual case studies derived from three institutions, University of Cincinnati, Oklahoma State University, and Florida State University, all of which are at different levels of implementation, maturity, and campus involvement.

URL : Scaling Research Data Management Services Along the Maturity Spectrum: Three Institutional Perspectives

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WZ8FN

 

Connector, Catalyst and Common Good: Defining the Academic Library of the 21st Century

Authors : Janice Jaguszewski, Lisa A. McGuire

Clearly articulating how an academic library inspires and transforms teaching, learning and research is critical for library leadership. Conveying the library’s deep expertise throughout the knowledge lifecycle (discovery, use, creation, and sharing) and demonstrating its ability to provide solutions to information problems are core to what an academic library brings to campus collaborations.

At the University of Minnesota, the Health Sciences Libraries have developed a “Space as a Service” model of collaboration that positions them as a vital component of a larger Interprofessional Learning and Education Center within the University’s Academic Health Center.

We describe and discuss six fundamental principles that guide our vision of an academic library as a Connector, Catalyst, Common Good and Service-Rich Environment, and offer a template for applying this model to a range of disciplines.

URL : https://journals.tdl.org/llm/index.php/llm/article/view/7227

Revisiting the Reusability and Openness of Resources in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Open Courseware

Author: Bernard Nkuyubwatsi

The marketing of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Open Courseware gives the impression that it has the potential to contribute to quality open learning and opening up higher education globally. It is from this perspective that the potential contribution of Open Educational Resources (OER) units in the MIT Open Courseware to opening up higher education in Rwanda was investigated. Ten OER units were sampled as objects of the study.

I took the role of an archive analyst, giving full attention to any item that constituted each unit. Results indicate that only one unit had enough openly licensed resources to enable its potential adaptation for use in opening up higher education.

In other units, only metadata (course information, the syllabus, course calendar, and the list of required and suggested readings), assignments and/or quizzes/exams were openly licensed. Most (if not all) of the required and suggested readings, which are the core learning materials learners need to engage with for quality learning, had to be purchased, mostly from the Amazon website.

On the basis of these findings, I argue that the MIT Open Courseware served the marketing agenda (probably for the purpose of acquiring funding), rather than the open access agenda.

The study may benefit funding organisations, educators and institutions that are interested in supporting or engaging in the production, adaptation and use of OER with an agenda to contribute to opening up higher education.

URL : Revisiting the Reusability and Openness of Resources in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Open Courseware

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.447