Archives des mots-clés : United States

Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Posté le par

Authors : Victoria Pilato, Clara Y. Tran

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of Stony Brook University (SBU) author perspectives on article processing charges (APCs). Publishing an article without restrictions, also known as open access publishing, can be a costly endeavor.

Many publishers charge APCs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars to publish an article without access restrictions. Authors who cannot obtain funding from grant agencies or their institution must pay APCs on their own. Do APCs fundamentally impact how authors choose their preferred publication venues?

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was designed to learn SBU author perspectives on, and concerns about, APCs.

RESULTS

Responses mainly came from the sciences. Many SBU authors preferred to publish in a prestigious journal or journal of their choice rather than in an open access journal.

Most authors published their articles in open access journals even if they were required to pay APCs. Many authors found that it was difficult finding funding for APCs and some expressed their concerns about the double charging practice. DISCUSSION SBU authors might believe that publishing in established and prestigious journals could secure their career’s advancement. Authors who chose to pay open access journals with APCs might be following publishing criteria.

Libraries can encourage authors to negotiate with publishers to obtain a discount or waiver of APCs, when possible. Institutions should negotiate shifting journal subscription costs toward hybrid open access publishing.

CONCLUSION

Data will be used to inform how the SBU Libraries can help authors locate funding opportunities for APCs.

URL : Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2349

Funding Sources for Open Access Article Processing Charges in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities in the United States

Posté le par

Authors : Melissa H. Cantrell, Juleah A. Swanson

Article processing charges (APCs) are one method of many to ensure open access to research literature, but studies that explore the funding sources for such payments, especially as related to open access publications in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, have been limited.

This study seeks to understand the range of funding sources that are available and used by faculties in these disciplines to pay for APCs associated with publishing in open access journals, as well as attitudes towards and awareness of available institutional funds that may inflect future engagement with open access publishing.

The authors distributed a survey to faculty who had an open access journal article published in 2017 from three doctoral granting, high research activity universities in the United States.

Twenty-two scholars participated in the final survey, ten of whom indicated that they paid an APC for their publication. While the results cannot make generalizations about funding sources, they do suggest that both the prevalence of APCs as well as attitudes about open access engagement may be influenced by disciplinary self-identification.

This research contributes to discussions around the future of open access funding models as well as to disciplinary outreach regarding APC funding for journal publications.

URL : Funding Sources for Open Access Article Processing Charges in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities in the United States

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010012

OER: Lessons from the Field

Posté le par

Authors : Roy Kaufman, Andrew Campana

As open educational resources (OER) expand in the US and elsewhere, attention should be paid to the challenges of implementing OER and solutions to those challenges. OER currently hold great promise for instructing students in K-12 (secondary) and primary school classrooms, because – unlike traditional curriculum materials – OER content can legally and freely be copied, used, adapted and reshared by anyone.

Notwithstanding the benefits, OER developers have not yet worked out certain structural issues that can make it difficult for teachers and students to use OER, impeding the adoption and broader acceptance of even the best designed OER curricula.

Links which disappear over time, device management, data and privacy concerns, quality, scope, sequence and alignment challenges, copyright issues and sustainability of OER curricula are all challenges that advocates of OER and curriculum designers often miss, ignore or avoid.

These challenges, however, can be overcome through thoughtful planning and partnerships, as has been done in the US with the successful Louisiana Guidebooks and other OER course materials.

URL : OER: Lessons from the Field

DOI : http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.464

How to Fight Fair Use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt : The Experience of One Open Educational Resource

Posté le par

Author : Lindsey Weeramuni

At the launch of one of the early online open educational resources (OER) in 2002, the approach to addressing copyright was uncertain. Did the university or the faculty own their material? How would the third-party material be handled? Was all of its use considered fair use under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17, United States Code) because of its educational purpose?

Or was permission-seeking necessary for this project to succeed and protect the integrity of faculty and university? For many years, this OER was conservative in its approach to third-party material, avoiding making fair use claims on the theory that it was too risky and difficult to prove in the face of an infringement claim.

Additionally, being one of the early projects of its kind, there was fear of becoming a target for ambitious copyright holders wanting to make headlines (and perhaps win lawsuits). It was not until 2009 that the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for OpenCourseWare was written by a community of practitioners who believed that if fair use worked for documentary film makers, video creators, and others (including big media), it worked in open education as well.

Once this Code was adopted, universities and institutions were able to offer more rich and complete course content to their users than before. This paper explains how it happened at this early open educational resource offering.

URL : How to Fight Fair Use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt : The Experience of One Open Educational Resource

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.9751

Integrating Data Science Tools into a Graduate Level Data Management Course

Posté le par

Authors: Pete E. Pascuzzi, Megan R. Sapp Nelson

Objective

This paper describes a project to revise an existing research data management (RDM) course to include instruction in computer skills with robust data science tools.

Setting

A Carnegie R1 university.

Brief Description

Graduate student researchers need training in the basic concepts of RDM. However, they generally lack experience with robust data science tools to implement these concepts holistically. Two library instructors fundamentally redesigned an existing research RDM course to include instruction with such tools.

The course was divided into lecture and lab sections to facilitate the increased instructional burden. Learning objectives and assessments were designed at a higher order to allow students to demonstrate that they not only understood course concepts but could use their computer skills to implement these concepts.

Results

Twelve students completed the first iteration of the course. Feedback from these students was very positive, and they appreciated the combination of theoretical concepts, computer skills and hands-on activities. Based on student feedback, future iterations of the course will include more “flipped” content including video lectures and interactive computer tutorials to maximize active learning time in both lecture and lab.

The substance of this article is based upon poster presentations at RDAP Summit 2018.

URL : Integrating Data Science Tools into a Graduate Level Data Management Course

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2018.1152

Measuring Open Access Policy Compliance: Results of a Survey

Posté le par

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

Posté le par

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