Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Friday, January 8, 2010

Open Access - 148 Resources | EDUCAUSE

 Open Access - 148 Resources | EDUCAUSE

Open Access - 148 Resources * Overview * Publications (93) * Presentations (15) * Podcasts (18) * Blogs (22) Overview * Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 * Initiatives from the NSF's DataNet Program: DataONE and the Data Conservancy * The "Other" Sustainability Problem * Throwing Open the Doors: Strategies and Implications for Open Access * Where Is the Open Education Movement Going? Refers to access to databases, online learning environments, publications and other information systems that often are password-protected.

Open Access - 148 Resources | EDUCAUSE

Friday, June 12, 2009

U Texas System Expands Copyright Clearance License -- Campus Technology

 U Texas System Expands Copyright Clearance License -- Campus Technology

U Texas System Expands Copyright Clearance License
  • By Dian Schaffhauser
  • 06/11/09

The University of Texas (UT) System has expanded its adoption of Copyright Clearance Center's annual copyright license from its Austin campus, which it announced in September 2008, to the entire UT System. The nine academic campuses and six health institutions that the UT System comprises make it one of the largest higher education systems in the United States.

The annual copyright license makes it easy for faculty and staff to license published materials for use in coursepacks, e-reserves, course management systems, and research collaboration. For a single annual fee, the license provides librarians, faculty, copy shop staff, and others with pre-approved permission to use and share content from millions of books, scholarly journals, newspapers, magazine, and e-books.

"An annual comprehensive license from the Copyright Clearance Center will allow all 15 campuses of the UT System to improve operational efficiency in this area and will position the UT System at the forefront of copyright use and compliance management," said Barry Burgdorf, vice chancellor and general counsel of the UT System. "We are pleased to deliver the campuses of one of the largest public university systems in the nation into this cost efficient arrangement, which will benefit our faculty, students and staff by providing easy, compliant access to a large and expanding library of academic works,"

"At UT Austin, we strive to make course materials available to students and faculty with minimal difficulties, and CCC's annual copyright license helps us do just that," added Georgia Harper, scholarly communications advisor with the UT at Austin Libraries. "With the annual copyright license, faculty and staff can focus on the business of teaching, while demonstrating the importance of respecting the intellectual and creative property of others."

The list of institutions that have adopted CCC's annual license includes the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, Middlebury College in Vermont, and Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, WI.

U Texas System Expands Copyright Clearance License -- Campus Technology

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education - Creative Commons

Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education - Creative Commons 

Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education

Jane Park, May 26th, 2009

Last November, the Center for Social Media at AU released a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education, which followed on the heels of a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video. These guides were aimed at clearing up many of the urban myths surrounding copyright, especially when it came to classroom use of copyrighted materials.

Now, the Media Education Lab at Temple University has produced excellent resources based on the original guide to help teachers teach about copyright and fair use in their classrooms. Resources include lesson plans, Powerpoint slides, videos, case studies, podcasts, and FAQs. The lesson plans iterate on topics from the code such as “Understanding Copyright”, “The Cost of Copyright Confusion”, and “Defining and Applying Fair Use”.

What tickles me: that in order to find out just what you can do with these resources, you get to view and use them first—Learning fair use via fair using! To use these resources in your classroom or study group (or for simply personal edification), check them all out here.

Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education - Creative Commons

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Not Enough Time in the Library - Chronicle.com

"Research Literate -- so much better than information literacy -- IMHO -- HSM"

FIRST PERSON

Not Enough Time in the Library

Just because your students are computer-literate doesn't mean they are research-literate

By TODD GILMAN

As an academic librarian, I hear an awful lot of hype about using technology to enhance instruction in colleges and universities. While the very word "technology" — not to mention the jargon that crops up around it, like "interactive whiteboards" and "smart classrooms" — sounds exciting and impressive, what it boils down to is really just a set of tools. They're useful tools, but they don't offer content beyond what the users put into them.

Today we have hardware and software that facilitate communication, resource-sharing, and organization. We have computers attached to projection systems for lectures and demonstrations; social-networking and messaging sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter; virtual spaces like blogs and wikis in which to collaborate; course-management software like Blackboard/WebCT, Sakai, and Angel to supplement or even take the place of the physical classroom; and programs such as RefWorks, Endnote, and Zotero to keep track of and format bibliographies.

Oldsters tend to associate those tools with youngsters. Many faculty members, especially senior ones, believe they are less adept at using those tools than their students are. While that much may be true, the assumption that follows — that when it comes to technology, today's students need no faculty guidance — most certainly is not.

While college students may be computer-literate, they are not, as a rule, research-literate. And there's a huge difference between the two.

The fact that some professors do not recognize the distinction means they effectively assume that their students find themselves as much at home in the complex and daunting world of information as when they upload 25 photos from their iPhone to Facebook and text their friends to announce the latest "pics."

Academic librarians are eager to offer sessions for students on what we call "research education." But the mistaken assumption that students don't need it means that many professors don't ask us to meet with their students, or even respond to our enthusiastic offers to lead such sessions. Students don't need to be taught anything about working online, because they were practically born digital, right?

Research education is not tools education. Research education involves getting students to understand how information is organized physically in libraries, as well as electronically in library catalogs and in powerful, sometimes highly specialized commercial databases. It means teaching students to search effectively online to identify the most relevant and highest-quality books, articles, microform sets, databases, even free Web resources.

Students do not come to college armed with those skills, nor are they likely to be acquired without guidance. Yet students desperately need such skills if they hope to function effectively in our information-driven economy. As Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams opine in The Craft of Research: The "vast majority of students will have careers in which, if they do not do their own research, they will have to evaluate and depend on the research of others. We know of no way to prepare for that responsibility better than to do research of one's own."

Professors may need to be reminded that online searching requires a set of skills that are the strong suit of academic librarians — and that we are eager to impart those skills to students. Faculty members may also need to be reminded that developing those skills takes practice. Would professors assume that students possess the critical-thinking skills necessary to make sense of an early-17th-century document related to the Plymouth Bay Colony just because they grew up in Massachusetts?

Here, then, are some tips for faculty members on how to augment students' research skills.

Spend a class period on search strategies. Show students how to find their way around the library's electronic catalog (for books) and a few general databases such as Academic Search Premier, those in the WilsonWeb platform, and LexisNexis Academic (for articles). A librarian can conduct a session with your students on those sources and, more important, demonstrate effective search strategies to avoid frustration and wasted time. Make the session mandatory, hold it during class, and be sure to attend it, to show you mean business. Even better, teach the session with the librarian, or at least chime in to stress key points.

Take a tour. Introduce students to the physical spaces of the library, especially the reference desk, the reference collection and its contents, the periodical reading room, and the stacks — including how to read a call number. Believe it or not, many students' familiarity with their college or university library stops at the study spaces.

Reinforce the lesson with an assignment. Devise a for-credit assignment that echoes what you and the librarian have shown the students. It should emphasize key distinctions that they often forget, such as the need to search the online catalog for books but library databases for articles. You might also incorporate a component that challenges students to evaluate the quality of information they find, such as comparing the top results returned by a keyword search in Google with those returned in Academic Search Premier with the peer-reviewed box checked. Which results are more authoritative, and how can students tell?

Take it a step further. Perhaps you want to do more than require a single assignment, such as encouraging students to use library materials in support of arguments in their term papers. It would be good to assign them Chapter 3 (pp. 40 to 55) of the second edition of The Craft of Research (available for library purchase as an e-book, so students don't have to shell out extra). The chapter covers how to turn interest in a topic into a research question that's worth trying to answer. It should reduce the likelihood that students will set out to write a paper on "the history of rowing on U.S. college campuses" and move them instead toward an argument supported by convincing data about, say, "the role that athletics plays in U.S. college admissions."

In an ideal world, students should have multiple encounters with librarians, not just the standard 60-to-90-minute session that is most common now.

Faculty members in Yale's English department clearly recognize the growing importance of research education: They have just agreed to increase fivefold the number of undergraduates who will attend library sessions as an integral part of their introductory writing and literature courses (from 350 to roughly 1,900). Add to that our new "personal librarian" program, which pairs every Yale freshman with a Yale librarian, and you see the students themselves begin to be repositioned to value learning the craft of research. Let's hope this example encourages others to follow suit.

The more time students spend with us, the further they can go beyond the basics into larger conceptual issues. Once they have determined what makes a good research question in the first place, they can move on to ask themselves (and the librarian) what is needed to answer specific questions they want to explore, developing the confidence that comes from knowing they are looking in all the right places for answers, and actually finding what they seek.

Todd Gilman is the librarian for literature in English at Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library.

Not Enough Time in the Library - Chronicle.com

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

 

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

Teachers don't need to rip DVDs to get clips for classroom use—they should just use a camcorder to record the DVD playing on a TV screen! So says the MPAA in a video it showed to the US Copyright Office in an attempt to argue that nobody should be ripping DVDs, even for educational use.

By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated May 7, 2009 9:44 PM CT

The Motion Picture Association of America has put itself back into the limelight as the DMCA exemptions hearings wraps up, thanks to a video circulating online suggesting teachers should use camcorders to record video instead of ripping DVD clips for classroom use. Though this suggestion has been floating around for some time now, the MPAA's attempt to push such a convoluted (and more costly) process into the classroom only highlights the industry's desperation to keep people away from DVD ripping—even when what they're doing falls into the category of fair use.

The video, posted on Vimeo, is actually of MPAA execs showing another video (meant to instruct teachers) to the US Copyright Office. The MPAA was showing the video as part of the triennial DMCA exemptions review, when all sides of the copyright debate whip out as much ammo as they can in an attempt to get the law extended to allow certain behaviors (or disallow, as the case may be) for the next three years.

In the video, the MPAA suggests that teachers who want to use movie clips as part of their curricula should use a camcorder to record the movie off of a TV set, and that this is an acceptable way to use video clips without breaking a DVD's copyright protections.

Nevermind that this solution results in video of questionable quality and requires teachers to learn even more tech in order to get the job done. It also requires schools (or, given the way most schools are run, the teachers themselves) to incur additional costs to purchase camcorders and videotapes if they don't have them already. Add in the extra time involved, and this "solution" is a laughably convoluted alternative to simply ripping a clip from a DVD.

Granted, teachers who want to rip DVD clips may still have to learn a bit in order to create a finished product, but that process still involves less equipment and fewer steps, not to mention a better-quality video. And, let's not forget that US copyright law already offers exemptions to teachers who want to use copyrighted clips for educational use—they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get those same clips just because the MPAA insists on continuing to fight the already lost battle to keep people from ripping DVDs.

MPAA: teachers should videotape monitors, not rip DVDs - Ars Technica

DigitalKoans » Blog Archive » Cornell Lifts Use Restrictions on Reproductions of Public Domain Works, Including over 70,000 E-Books

 

Cornell Lifts Use Restrictions on Reproductions of Public Domain Works, Including over 70,000 E-Books

The Cornell University Library has eliminated use restrictions on reproductions of public domain works, including over 70,000 e-books.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

In a dramatic change of practice, Cornell University Library has announced it will no longer require its users to seek permission to publish public domain items duplicated from its collections. Instead, users may now use reproductions of public domain works made for them by the Library or available via Web sites, without seeking any further permission.

The Library, as the producer of digital reproductions made from its collections, has in the past licensed the use of those reproductions. Individuals and corporations that failed to secure permission to repurpose these reproductions violated their agreement with the Library. "The threat of legal action, however," noted Anne R. Kenney, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, "does little to stop bad actors while at the same time limits the good uses that can be made of digital surrogates. We decided it was more important to encourage the use of the public domain materials in our holdings than to impose roadblocks."

The immediate impetus for the new policy is Cornell’s donation of more than 70,000 digitized public domain books to the Internet Archive (details at www.archive.org/details/cornell).

"Imposing legally binding restrictions on these digital files would have been very difficult and in a way contrary to our broad support of open access principles," said Oya Y. Rieger, Associate University Librarian for Information Technologies. "It seemed better just to acknowledge their public domain status and make them freely usable for any purpose. And since it doesn't make sense to have different rules for material that is reproduced at the request of patrons, we have removed permission obligations from public domain works."

Institutional restrictions on the use of public domain work, sometimes labeled "copyfraud," have been the subject of much scholarly criticism. The Cornell initiative goes further than many other recent attempts to open access to public domain material by removing restrictions on both commercial and non-commercial use. Users of the public domain works are still expected to determine on their own that works are in the public domain where they live. They also must respect non-copyright rights, such as the rights of privacy, publicity, and trademark. The Library will continue to charge service fees associated with the reproduction of analog material or the provision of versions of files different than what is freely available on the Web. All library Web sites will be updated to reflect this new policy during 2009.

The new Cornell policy can be found at cdl.library.cornell.edu/guidelines.html.

DigitalKoans » Blog Archive » Cornell Lifts Use Restrictions on Reproductions of Public Domain Works, Including over 70,000 E-Books

Friday, May 8, 2009

Google Books Discussion -- Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now! 

Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Today Democracy Now! broadcast an interview between Amy Goodman and Brewster Kahle about digitization, the Google Book Search Settlement, and the future of books and libraries (taped on April 17 in San Francisco):

Open Content Alliance (OCA) » Blog Archive » Brewster Kahle Interviewed on Democracy Now!

The Chronicle: Daily news: 04/04/2002 -- 02

 The Chronicle: Daily news: 04/04/2002 -- 02

New Software Blocks Trades of Music and Video Files Outside the Campus Network
By SCOTT CARLSON

Call it diet KaZaA -- plenty of file-sharing power, less bandwidth hassle.

A new file-sharing program called Phynd is burrowing in at a handful of

universities, including the University of Connecticut, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Unlike KaZaA and other file-sharing programs, which allow users to find and trade MP3 files or video files across the Internet, Phynd limits its searches and its users to computers on the network on which the program is running. University of Connecticut students, for example, won't find an MP3 on a computer in Illinois; and an MP3 hunter at the University of Chicago can't get access to the Phynd search engine at UConn.

Phynd's local orientation is good news for college computer-system officers and for students who want to get a quicker MP3 fix. File sharing can clog an institution's connection to the Internet, forcing activity to a near halt. But many internal campus networks are significantly more robust than their Internet connections.

Paul Kobulnicky, vice chancellor for information services at Connecticut, calls Phynd an "interesting adaptation" in the ever-evolving world of file sharing. MP3-hungry students often dodge university-imposed bandwidth restrictions to get digitized music and video. "What you're finding is that kids are aware of the effect that they are having on local networks, but they are also aware of what we are doing to control it," Mr. Kolbulnicky says. "Whatever it is they want to share, they've realized that they can share it more effectively if they localize it."

Brent Holden, a junior and computer-engineering major, set up a Phynd server "as a hobby" in his dormitory room at UConn. According to statistics on the Phynd page, about 350,000 searches for MP3 files have been performed through Mr. Holden's server since late February. By comparison, the Phynd server at the Rochester Institute of Technology has performed about 17,000 searches.

"I didn't mean for it to get as popular as it did," Mr. Holden says.

The University of Connecticut shut down Mr. Holden's server for a few days to study the situation, then allowed it to go back up. Mr. Kobulnicky says that servers are allowed to exist at the university if they don't serve material to users outside of the network. The rule is meant to thwart use of the university network for commercial ventures. He says people often run servers inside the network for clearly educational purposes.

Although Phynd's local orientation makes it easier on an institution's Internet connection than other file-sharing programs, it's unclear whether that makes the program more acceptable from a legal perspective.

"It's a totally different legal realm when you're talking about a local-area network as opposed to the entire Internet," Mr. Holden asserts. Because you might know the person who's downloading an MP3 off your computer, he says, "the rules are a little different."

"It's still peer-to-peer file sharing, but it could be the friend right across the hall from you or another person in your dorm," he says.

Brendan P. Conte, one of Phynd's developers, agrees. "The whole legal issue, as I interpret it, is opening sharing to everyone," says Mr. Conte, a senior majoring in computer science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "At least that's what I'm hoping," he adds. Mr. Conte says that there is a dormant portion of the Phynd program that will support off-campus sharing, "but if you enable it, you're going to be liable for what happens."

However, not everyone is so sure that keeping sharing local makes it legal. "Our institution's position is that sharing is sharing, and if it's illegal at any point it's illegal at all points," Mr. Kobulnicky says. The exclusive nature of Phynd "raises a specter that bothers me," he says, because it doesn't allow copyright owners to see the use and availability of their material on the network. He wonders if that opens up universities to different kinds of lawsuits than they have faced as a result of earlier file-sharing activity.

"I kind of like having the rights owner being able to poke around and find violations," Mr. Kobulnicky adds. "That way, the rights owner isn't wondering what kind of violations are going on inside my operation."

The Recording Industry Association of America also disapproves of Phynd. In a statement, Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the recording industry, said "the software appears to facilitate the unauthorized copying and distribution of music and other protected content."

"We find this extremely disturbing -- simply restricting this kind of file sharing to a particular network does not make it any less wrong. We would hope that the faculty of the university, who understand the value of protecting copyrighted works, would help put a stop to this. We will discuss this and decide what the best follow-up course of action is."


The Chronicle: Daily news: 04/04/2002 -- 02

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Diamondback - Faculty sens. battle over open access

The Diamondback - Faculty sens. battle over open access 

Faculty sens. battle over open access

By: Tirza Austin
Posted: 4/24/09
An unforeseen debate erupted at the University Senate meeting yesterday about where faculty members should be encouraged to publish their research.
After more than half an hour of debate, the senate voted against a resolution that called for faculty members to publish their work in free online databases. Despite the potential savings open-access journals could bring to the university, the senate voted the resolution down in a 37-24 decision, due to perceived impositions on academic freedom.
"[The cost of scholarly journals] has to be one of the most challenging issues we have at this university," Senate Chair Ken Holum said.
The defeated resolution, proposed by the senate's faculty affairs committee, laid out four specific suggestions: for university President Dan Mote to advocate for open-access journals on a national level, to urge the libraries to educate faculty on the cost of journals and to encourage faculty to publish their research in open-access journals and deposit findings in open-access databases whenever possible.
Because so many faculty members are published in research journals that require subscriptions, the university has to pay for access to numerous journals every year. Dan Falvey, the chairman of the committee that authored the resolution, emphasized the proposal was not a university policy and didn't mandate any changes, but was rather intended to spark discussion about other options for journal access. But, Holum said, the discussion it sparked was largely "gloom and doom."
"Open access will kill the journals you need during your career," women's studies professor and university senator Claire Moses said. "It's as simple as that."
While everyone acknowledged that the high cost of scholarly journals and slimming library budgets needed to be addressed, many felt it was too soon to instate anything resembling university policy.
Terry Owen, a librarian who is a university senator, defended open-access publications, saying that because the publications do not require authors to assign copyright to a publisher, scholars can retain the rights to their own work.
"The final goal is to make information more accessible and available," Owen said.
But Moses, who has served as editorial director of the journal Feminist Studies since 1977, said any action promoting publishing only in open-access journals would harm the visibility of the university and its faculty members - especially its tenured faculty members.
Senators criticized the proposal for its language, which they said did not accurately characterize the variations that exist between departments. Throughout the debate, science professors faced off against humanities professors - a rift caused by the vast differences between scientific journals and humanities journals.
"This is a proposal that does not take into account the needs of different disciplines," history professor Gay Gullickson said. "[Open access] applies well to some disciplines and hurts others."
Both Moses and Gullickson argued the resolution's language was too strong to count as a mere suggestion and would eventually lead to university policy.
"This does not call for discussion - it urges the president to take action," Gullickson said.
But Holum predicted this will not be the last time the senate discusses the issue of open-access publications.
He added the situation facing the libraries will have to be addressed in the near future.
Arts and humanities Dean James Harris, who also served as the chairman of the search committee that will help elect a new dean of the library system, said every candidate he has encountered expressed concern over the state of scholarly publications, noting students turn to online search engines like Google rather than going to a library. Harris added that libraries are slowly becoming virtual and the university will eventually have to transition with them.
"This is happening," Harris said. "The train has left the station."
taustindbk@gmail.com
© Copyright 2009 The Diamondback

The Diamondback - Faculty sens. battle over open access

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

ACRL - ACRL Scholarly Communications 101 Road Show

ACRL - ACRL Scholarly Communications 101 Road Show 

ACRL offers scholarly communication 101 road show at no cost to you

Bring the workshop “Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics” to your campus, compliments of ACRL. Recognizing that scholarly communication issues are central to the work of all academic librarians and all types of institutions, ACRL is pleased to underwrite the costs for delivering proven content to you. Two expert presenters emphasize experiential learning in this 3-hour workshop. You need to collaborate with at least one other local academic library and arrange the logistics.

Program Description

This structured interactive overview of the scholarly communication system underpins individual or institutional strategic planning and action. Four modules focus on:

• new methods of scholarly publishing and communication
• copyright and intellectual property
• economics
• open access and openness as a principle

The workshop is appropriate for those with new leadership assignments in scholarly communication as well as liaisons and others who are interested in the issues and need foundational understanding.

Learning Objectives

Participants will:

• Understand scholarly communication as a system to manage the results of research and scholarly inquiry and be able to describe system characteristics, including academic libraries and other major stakeholders and stakeholder interests, major types and sources of current stress and evolution, and key indicators of size, complexity, and rates of change
• Enumerate new modes and models of scholarly communication; business models; research & social interaction models (from blogs, curated websites, etc), and peer review models and examples of the ways in which academic libraries have or can initiate or support those models
• Be able to select and cite key principles, facts, and messages relevant to current or nascent scholarly communication plans and programs in their institutions, e.g. as preparation for library staff or faculty outreach, to contextualize collection development decisions

Successful Applicants Must

• Include participants from more than one institution.
• Minimum participation is 35, maximum of 100 individuals, to allow for maximum interactivity.
• Provide a statement of support from hosting authority, i.e. library director/dean, consortia/association administrator, or ACRL chapter leader.
• Provide a brief essay (1 page maximum) explaining what your institutions will do after the workshop to maintain momentum, engagement, and awareness.
• Apply by April 13, 2009.
• Host this event by August 31, 2009.

Preference to

• Hosts who are organizational members of ACRL (Not sure? Ask ACRL staff member kmalenfant@ala.org to check for you.)
• Hosts who identify an experienced local presenter to partner and deliver workshop content.
• Diversity of institution types represented among participants (i.e. 2 year, liberal arts, masters comprehensive, doctoral)
• Diversity of types of library staff participating (i.e. liaison librarians, catalogers, access services staff, senior management)

Host Responsibilities

1) Registration

a) Marketing and publicity of the workshop (print, Web, e-mail)
b) May consider this as an opportunity to invite staff outside the library (i.e. research office, graduate college).
c) Management of selection process, if any
d) Management of registration process (i.e. issuing registration receipts, rosters, etc.)
e) Limit participation to 100 individuals (minimum participation is 35), to allow for maximum interactivity
f) Participant and presenter name badges

2) Event coordination and logistics to include:

a) Reservation of meeting space per room requirements provided by presenters
b) On-site A-V technology and support
c) Planning and associated costs of food and beverage for break (if any)
d) Printing and copying of handouts in advance
e) Volunteer staff as needed

Complete an application form at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WMvXmmVOnEiUCm6oWl_2b12A_3d_3d by Monday, April 13, 2009. The ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee will review applications, selecting several locations, based on number of requests and capacity, The committee will aim for geographic diversity and notify applicants of their status by Friday, April 24, 2009.

Expert presenters may include:
• Lee VanOrsdel, Dean of University Libraries, Grand Valley State University
• Joy  Kirchner, Project Manager, Scholarly Communications & Sciences Collections Librarian, University of British Columbia Library
• Molly Keener, Reference Librarian, Wake Forest University Health Sciences
• Sarah Shreeves, Coordinator, IDEALS, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Questions about the program or how to apply? Please contact Kara J. Malenfant, Scholarly Communications and Government Relations Specialist, ACRL, at kmalenfant@ala.org or 800/545-2433 ext. 2510.

ACRL - ACRL Scholarly Communications 101 Road Show

Friday, February 27, 2009

End of Free Access « The Scholarly Kitchen

End of Free Access « The Scholarly Kitchen 

End of Free Access

Posted by Philip Davis

A venerable Open Access title in medical research has instituted a subscription model for its online journal.

The Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI), a prestigious title in continuous publication since 1924, implemented a subscription model beginning with its January 2009 issue.  Original articles, however, continue to be freely available.

JCI began providing free access to all online content in 1996.  In spite of dwindling revenue from print subscribers, the journal continued to justify free access to its content.

JCI has an impact factor of 16.9, and is the most highly-cited journal within its category of Medicine, Research and Experimental, according to ISI’s 2007 Journal Citation Reports.  Its editors reject 9 out of every 10 manuscript submissions.

The journal receives several sources of income from its authorsJCI charges for submission ($70 US), pages charges ($0.22 per word), plus additional fees for each figure ($100), table ($50),  supplemental data ($300) and color ($1000).  Apparently, these author charges are not sufficient to cover publication costs for a high-quality journal.

Between 1996 and 2003,  JCI lost 40% of its institutional subscribers, according to John Hawley, Executive Director of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.  Responding to my email on his decision to institute online subscriptions, Hawley responded in practical terms:

The decision to institute access control was not a strained one; there are costs to be met, and this was the one route available to determine if they could be met.

In 2005, another prestigious medical journal, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), ended full free online access, citing hemorrhaging revenue and the desire to fund future product development as justifications.  BMJ (like JCI) still provides free access to research articles.

There is a substantial difference between these two journals: BMJ publishes only 4 or 5 research articles per issue — the rest is full of editorials, letters, news, commentary, and other non-research material.  In comparison, JCI is primarily a research journal, publishing 15-30 articles per issue with little non-research material.  Responding to a question I posted on MEDLIB-L, a listserv for medical librarians, Peter Cole, director of the Aquinas Medical Library in New Jersey responded:

there isn’t enough non-research content in JCI to justify purchasing a subscription

Other librarians responded that they reinstated their institutional subscription, some begrudgingly.  At a time when many librarians are attempting to make radical cuts in their budget, this news did not come at a welcome time. Leslie Czechowski, Assistant Director of Collections & Technical Services at the University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library responded:

we canceled [our subscription] because of free online access.  Another year we might have resubscribed, but in times of declining budgets, it will be a more difficult decision

If new subscription revenue does not meet expectations, does JCI have any recourse (such as increasing page fees for authors)?  John Hawley answered soberly,

There’s always recourse.

 John Hawley Says:

  1. Feb 26, 2009 at 9:30 am

    For what it’s worth, here’s the nonredacted version of my responses to the queries provided to me:

    * How difficult was it to make this decision?

    The JCI instituted access control for most non-research articles (commentaries, reviews, etc.) in January 2009. The history of the JCI publishing a mass of these types of articles is relatively brief, the last decade or so. While access control for this content was discussed in the past, the sentiment was that if the JCI could afford to make this content freely available, it should. This sentiment, however, progressively came up against hard costs — staffing, printing, and the like — for which there was no offsetting revenue such as there has been for the research articles published in the JCI. The decision to institute access control was not a strained one; there are costs to be met, and this was the one route available to determine if they could be met.

    * Do you think there enough incentive for libraries to reinstate their subscriptions. Put another way, do you think there enough content outside the original research articles to demand a subscription?

    We hope to bring back former institutional and individual subscribers, certainly. We feel that the articles we’re publishing are of standout quality, produced typically by leaders in their given fields. The metrics from citation rates to online usage suggest we’re hitting the mark. If quality isn’t a sufficient draw, it’s a problem not just for the JCI but many other journals.

    * Considering the current financial market, will libraries have the leeway to reinstate subscriptions?

    The economic climate for libraries has been eroding for some time, thanks to the avarice and near monopoly of commercial publishers. As a nonprofit publisher, I believe our role — our obligation — is to deliver the best journal we can at the lowest cost possible. We’ve done this; whether libraries can turn down the big deal to come back to us (and other nonprofit publications) remains to be seen.

    * If new subscription revenue does not meet expectations, is there any recourse (e.g. increase submission fees, page fees, etc.)

    There’s always a recourse.

End of Free Access « The Scholarly Kitchen

resolution.htm

resolution.htm 

For Whom the Gate Tolls?

How and Why to Free the Refereed Research Literature
Online Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving, Now

Stevan Harnad
Intelligence/Agents/Multimedia Group
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Highfield, Southampton
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/

ABSTRACT: All refereed journals will soon be available online; most of them already are. This means that anyone will be able to access them from any networked desk-top. The literature will all be interconnected by citation, author, and keyword/subject links, allowing for unheard-of power and ease of access and navigability. Successive drafts of pre-refereeing preprints will be linked to the official refereed draft, as well as to any subsequent corrections, revisions, updates, comments, responses, and underlying empirical databases, all enhancing the self-correctiveness, interactivity and productivity of scholarly and scientific research and communication in remarkable new ways. New scientometric indicators of digital impact are also emerging (http://opcit.eprints.org) to chart the online course of knowledge. But there is still one last frontier to cross before science reaches the optimal and the inevitable: Just as there is no longer any need for research or researchers to be constrained by the access-blocking restrictions of paper distribution, there is no longer any need to be constrained by the impact-blocking financial fire-walls of Subscription/Site-License/Pay-Per-View (S/L/P) tolls for this give-away literature. Its author/researchers have always donated their research reports for free (and its referee/researchers have refereed for free), with the sole goal of maximizing their impact on subsequent research (by accessing the eyes and minds of fellow-researchers, present and future) and hence on society. Generic (OAi-compliant) software is now available free so that institutions can immediately create Eprint Archives in which their authors can self-archive all their refereed papers for free for all forever (http://www.eprints.org/). These interoperable Open Archives (http://www.openarchives.org) will then be harvested into global, jointly searchable "virtual archives" (e.g., http://arc.cs.odu.edu/). "Scholarly Skywriting" in this PostGutenberg Galaxy will be dramatically (and measurably) more interactive and productive, spawning its own new digital metrics of productivity and impact, allowing for an online "embryology of knowledge."

resolution.htm

Final Impact: What Factors Really Matter? | Scholarly Communication Program

Final Impact: What Factors Really Matter? | Scholarly Communication Program 

Final Impact: What Factors Really Matter?

A panel discussion on the debate about the best way to rank the importance and influence of scholarly publications. Panelists: Marian Hollingsworth, director of Publisher Relations at Thomson Reuters and former assistant director of the National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services; Jevin West, an Achievement Awards for College Scientists Fellow at the University of Washington's Biology Department and head developer for Eigenfactor.org; and Johan Bollen, a staff researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the principal investigator of the MESUR project. Columbia University Librarian Jim Neal introduces the talk.

Video from here -- http://scholcomm.columbia.edu/final-impact-what-factors-really-matter

Read the Twitter feed from the panel here.

Final Impact: What Factors Really Matter? | Scholarly Communication Program

Studies of key stakeholders in the digital transformation in higher education

Studies of key stakeholders in the digital transformation in higher education 

Studies of key stakeholders in the digital transformation in higher education

Changing technologies have been accompanied by changes in research habits, scholarly communications patterns, campus roles, and more. These changes offer exciting new opportunities, but also pose significant challenges for those who serve the higher education community. This document describes the findings of two large scale surveys conducted in 2006. The authors suggest a number of ways for libraries to exercise leadership in the transition to an increasingly electronic environment, sometimes in collaboration with other like-minded institutions.

Studies of key stakeholders in the digital transformation in higher education

Friday, February 20, 2009

nsf.gov - News - Open Access to Scientific Papers May Not Guarantee Wide Dissemination- - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

"Without reading the study and the methodology behind this, it is interesting in terms of results....my initial thought was that most people are encouraged to publish in both, i.e. in journals as well as retaining rights for publication in repositories, so how are these separated in the study." - HSM

Press Release 09-026
Open Access to Scientific Papers May Not Guarantee Wide Dissemination

New research challenges assumption that having research published in open access journals and other free sources leads to more exposure and citations

Back to article | Note about images

Image of a video screen with journals and old books displayed behind a lock and key.

Millions of research papers and other scholarly material are available on the internet, however, in many cases a person or library must pay to access them. In recent years, as the internet has helped lower the cost of publishing, more and more scientists have begun publishing their research in open source outlets on the internet. Since these publications are free to anyone with an internet connection, the belief has been that more interested readers will find them and potentially cite them. New research from James A. Evans and Jacob Reimer of the University of Chicago suggests that being in an open source publication does not necessarily increase the number of times a research paper is used by other researchers.
Credit: Jupiter Images

James Evans discusses his research into the impact of open source publishing.

View video
James Evans, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, discusses his research into the impact of open source publishing on disseminating scientific information. Evans and his partner Jacob Reimer, a student of neurobiology at the University of Chicago, examined millions of journal articles and other publications. They concluded that having a publication available online in an open source journal did increase the number of times it was read and cited, but having the publication available online in a commercial format increased its usage even more. These findings seemingly contradict previous research into open source publishing. Evans and Reimer did discover that open source publishing provides a vital source of information for researchers and scholars in the developing world who may not otherwise have access to this type of material. Their research appears in the February 20, 2009 edition of the journal Science.
Credit: National Science Foundation/AAAS

Cover of the February 20, 2009 edition of the journal Science.

The research into open source publications appears in the February 20, 2009, edition of the journal Science.
Credit: Copyright AAAS 2009

 

nsf.gov - News - Open Access to Scientific Papers May Not Guarantee Wide Dissemination- All Images - US National Science Foundation (NSF) - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

The Diamondback - Guest column: Online freedom

The Diamondback - Guest column: Online freedom 

Guest column: Online freedom

By: Catherine Simpson
Posted: 2/19/09
Did you know the average student spends about $1,000 annually on textbooks alone? This massive expense is about half of the tuition of an average two-year institution, and all we get out of it are books that only six percent of us will ever read in their entirety.
The article in Tuesday's Diamondback, "Professors take aim at high book expenses," highlighted the issue of skyrocketing textbook prices. Textbook prices have increased roughly four times the rate of inflation, making affording college an even bigger issue. On top of budget cuts, tuition hikes and lack of resources, college is becoming too expensive for the average student and leaving millions in debt. Shouldn't we start to take control of our expenses?
Professors Allen Stairs and Sonya Michel proposed that faculty should come together to save students money and make use of the wide array of digital and textbook alternative resources available to faculty members right now. The university's chapter of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group is already working on organizing a forum to bring faculty members together this semester to discuss what options exist.
Open textbooks are the best alternative option. Professors and leading researchers can create an online textbook with free, open access to any interested person. Teachers can choose information from multiple sources and edit it for their needs, cutting out the excess information found in most textbooks that students have to pay for. Not only does this reduce the cost for students, it also allows flexibility for teachers to teach from many different sources instead of one fixed book.
While many may not be aware of this issue, the open textbook movement is making headway in many areas, and people are interested. A survey of faculty at 28 different colleges and universities across the country asked opinions on education resources such as open textbooks. An overwhelming 91 percent responded that they would be interested in using open textbooks, but only 34 percent knew there were resources to use.
Fields such as science, medicine and health have an overwhelming amount of open information available to them, and the social sciences have a wealth of opportunity in this field, as well. These books are of the same quality as current textbooks, and are written by leaders in these fields. Additionally, the resources already out there are already being used by peer institutions, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology - MIT even has a digital databank of resources for almost every course at the school. The information is out there, it just needs to be used.
This university has an opportunity to be a leader in the evolution of textbooks and information resources. However, faculty members shouldn't have to go it alone to find these materials - the administration and departments should work with faculty members to assist them in making this transition.
And as students, we must take it upon ourselves to ask our teachers and administration what they can do to help make a better, innovative classroom experience.
Catherine Simpson is a senior criminology and criminal justice and sociology major. She can be reached at csimpso4@umd.edu.
© Copyright 2009 The Diamondback

The Diamondback - Guest column: Online freedom

Virginia Open Sourcing Physics Textbook ("Flexbook") - Tools of Change for Publishing

Virginia Open Sourcing Physics Textbook ("Flexbook") - Tools of Change for Publishing 

Virginia Open Sourcing Physics Textbook ("Flexbook")

Andrew Savikas
February 18, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | Listen Speech Icon

I was part of a brief Twitter exchange recently with Cengage's Ken Brooks about the cost of textbooks:

kenbrooks: @doctorow #toc That depends entirely on the type of book. A K-12 reading program costs $millions.

andrewsavikas: @kenbrooks not necessarily. See ck12.org

kenbrooks: @andrewsavikas Talk to McGraw Hill or Pearson about basal reading programs. The intricacies are staggering. #toc

I like Ken a lot personally (and respect him a ton professionally), and I have no reason to doubt that it does take millions to develop many educational programs. But my reference to ck12.org (whose founder, Neeru Khosla, keynoted at TOC 2008) was because if it does cost that much, then something's wrong with the system, and that's not likely to change without the work of groups like ck12.

In fact, Virgina is already in the process of developing an open-source "flexbook" for physics using the ck12 platform:

Secretary of Technology Aneesh Chopra and Secretary of Education Tom Morris today announced the selection of thirteen individuals to form a core team to pilot the development and release of an open–source physics "flexbook" for Virginia. This electronic material will focus on high school physics and contain contemporary and emerging 21st century physics and modern laboratory experiments.

The Virginia Physics "Flexbook" project is a collaborative effort of the Secretaries of Education and Technology and the Department of Education that seeks to elevate the quality of physics instruction across the Commonwealth by allowing educators to create and compile supplemental materials relating to 21st century physics in an open–source format that can be used to strengthen physics content. The Commonwealth is partnering with the Palo Alto, California–based non–profit, CK–12 on this initiative as they will provide the free, open–source technology platform to facilitate the publication of the newly developed content as a "flexbook" — defined simply as an adaptive, web–based set of instructional materials.

"We need transformational ideas to ensure all Virginians are educated to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy," said Secretary Chopra. "This pilot initiative is a step in the right direction to introduce our students to contemporary physics topics and lab materials at no additional cost to the taxpayers or students," added Secretary Morris.

There is certainly a place for the investment-intensive educational publishing programs that only a firm with the resources of Cengage or Pearson or McGraw-Hill can provide. But there's also enormous opportunity to try new models that take advantage of the kind of collaboration that underpins all of academia to develop and distribute

Virginia Open Sourcing Physics Textbook ("Flexbook") - Tools of Change for Publishing

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Cornell University Copyright Information Center - About Us

Cornell University Copyright Information Center - About Us 

About the Copyright Information Center

Goals

The goal of the Copyright Information Center is to provide Cornell faculty, staff, and students with Cornell-specific and general information about copyright. The Website serves as an information clearinghouse and contains Cornell policies, general information, reference materials, and information on the University's copyright awareness and education programs. You can also find information about the copyright clearance and consultancy services to assist you with your copyright-related questions.

We are interested in hearing your comments. Please send us your feedback and suggestions to support the further development of the Center.

Partners

This Website has been collectively developed by the following Cornell units. If you have any questions or need to contact one of the partners, please use the Help form:

Cornell University Library - (Website Development Coordinator)
Peter Hirtle, Intellectual Property Officer
Jesse Koennecke, Public Services Librarian
Fiona Patrick, Copyright Services
Oya Y. Rieger, Coordinator of Distributed Learning

Cornell Information Technologies
Joan Falkenberg Getman, Assistant Director, Distributed Learning Services
Diane Kubarek, Trainer/Technical Consultant
Todd Olson, Steward, Cornell E-Mail-List and USENET News Services
Clare van den Blink, Faculty Development and Training Program Coordinator

Office of Information Technologies
Tracy Mitrano, Policy Advisor

Office of University Counsel
Patricia McClary, Associate University Counsel

The Cornell Store
Jim Lawrence, Custom Publishing Manager

Cornell University Copyright Information Center - About Us

The Daily Beacon

The Daily Beacon 

Fund for open access publishing offers opportunities for faculty

Olivia Smithscott - Staff Writer

2009-02-16 22:19:53

A new fund sponsored by the Office of Research and the University Libraries is intended to encourage and assist publishing in open access journals, according to their Web site.

Open access publishing is a developing �model for the communication of research and scholarship,� the Web site says, serving as a digital repository for scholarly materials to be freely accessed with no cost to the receiver for the information.

Open access publishing, an alternative to the more expensive commercial publishing commonly used for academic publication, also seeks to cut down on the costs to academic institutions, which often pay large amounts of money to receive access to these scholarly journals. Linda Phillips, head of scholarly communication, said that the current system is a rather costly one.

�The university pays twice for journal articles,� Phillips said. �We pay faculty to write articles, and then we pay high prices for subscriptions to the journals where they�re published.�

The fund, which was founded in the fall semester of last year, provides money to faculty and graduate students wishing to publish in an open access journal. According to the Web site, the open access publishers charge money to the authors rather than the readers to cover the costs of publishing.

The money for the fund comes from an opportunities fund used for the pursuit of various research and scholarly opportunities, said Gregory Reed, vice chancellor for research administration. The Open Access Fund, at the moment, contains $20,000 for assistance.

Another huge advantage, besides considerable financial savings, Phillips said, is that the author may keep the copyright of their material, so they aren�t selling their work to someone else and are then able to publish in more than one place.

Phillips said the need for such an alternative system stems from a trend in commercial publishing over the past 30 years: an inelastic demand and the hike of subscription fees, due to the lack of competition.

�Some commercial publishers realized they could make a lot of money by increasing the prices of their journals because there�s no competition,� Phillips said. �And when faculty choose where they want to publish, they pick the journal title that is most prestigious, and often it�s the commercial title that carries the most prestige because the publisher has the resources to put into it.�

Recently, Phillips said, due to ever-increasing subscription fees sometimes numbering around $10,000 a month, the scholarly community has begun to seek out better ways of sharing their research.

�We as faculty are required to publish as a part of our job, and the reason that we publish is not to make money. It is to disseminate the results of our research,� she said. �If we�re going to disseminate the results of our research, why should somebody else make money off of it? We said, �What if we published in journals that said they were going to cover the costs in some way other than through subscriptions?��

Phillips said another issue with these commercial scholarly publications is that much of the content is determined by the publisher rather than a peer evaluator.

�Because these certain journals developed really great reputations, effectively, the publisher is the one making decisions about the quality rather than the discipline,� she said. �It�s like the publisher is controlling the peer review process, not the scholarly society.�

Although open access seems to be a promising new frontier, one problem with the open access route, said Reed, is that it may take awhile for it to reach the respectability and prominence of the commercial publications. Reed concluded that several factors would contribute to an improved reputation for open access.

�First of all they�ll have to have some sort of review or approval process that insures that peers will deem it as being reliable,� he said. �If anybody can post anything, then it�s not reliable. The next step would be for faculty in general to recognize it as being a peer quality review. In the final analysis, that�s where the journals got their success.�

So far, Reed said, there hasn�t been as much interest as expected in the fund, with very few applications for assistance being submitted. But Reed attributes this to caution and unfamiliarity with the new system on the part of authors.

Despite the slow response, Phillips cited Ralf Schimmer in The Chronicle of Higher Education for his promising evaluation of how relevant open access will become in time.

�I call it the logical next step, to move beyond the repository and subscription model scheme,� Schimmer said. �Open access is an inevitable, unstoppable and irreversible development.�

The Daily Beacon

CC Licensing Your Dissertations - Creative Commons

CC Licensing Your Dissertations - Creative Commons 

CC Licensing Your Dissertations

Jane Park, February 17th, 2009

PhD students slave for years on researching, writing, and drafting a final product, usually text, that marks the culmination of their candidacy for the highly esteemed doctoral degree. This product is then reviewed by a tenured member of the faculty in their domain of expertise, or a small committee of said members. Upon passing this review, the student is finally rewarded the title of “Doctor” along with its perceived reputation. The dissertation, unfortunately, usually falls to the wayside and is, for the most part, never read again.

Furthermore, because most dissertations are fully copyrighted, these significant pieces of work cannot be reproduced or redistributed for future students’ research. So why not do the obvious? Why not work with copyright law and publish your dissertation under an open license, thereby increasing its exposure to the world, academic or otherwise?

Two UC Berkeley graduates from the School of Information have gone ahead and taken a stab at doing this by CC licensing their dissertations. In the words of The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s independent, student-run newspaper:

This license opens up many possibilities in the academic world such as free online course readers, zero cost educational multimedia, gratis online tutorials-even the price of paper textbooks could be drastically reduced. Perhaps more important than cost, however, by using Creative Commons you are essentially “paying it forward” by sharing your intellectual output with the academic community because future generations of scholars will have greater access to your work.

Two recent Berkeley students to file their dissertations using a Creative Commons license are Joseph Lorenzo Hall and danah boyd. Hall navigated through much bureaucratic red tape, but found that most of his difficulty came from simple formatting issues, not any ideological disagreement by the univerisyt. Another School of Information graduate, danah boyd, also filed her dissertation under Creative Commons shortly thereafter.

On Jan. 28, the Dean of the Graduate Division committed to make Creative Commons licensing available to future students. All students interested in contributing to the effort to make education more affordable and accessible should consider using Creative Commons instead of traditional copyright.

Both danah’s and Joseph’s dissertations are licensed CC BY-NC-ND and are respectively entitled “Taken Out of Context — American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics” and “Policy Mechanisms for Increasing
Transparency in Electronic Voting
“.

We hope that other institutions and individuals will also embrace the significant benefits gained by CC licensing academic outputs such as dissertations. For one thing, CC licensing increases your creation’s visibility, even if by only a small margin at first. It lets current and future students access and read (and even derive, based on the specific CC license you choose) your work so that they can build and improve upon it—all the while giving credit where credit is due, namely, to you.

CC Licensing Your Dissertations - Creative Commons