This article explores the author’s ‘personal manifesto’. It describes the framework he devised to help him understand his style, preferences and needs in a professional context and explores the intersection of the professional and the personal, identifying links between how we think and act in the professional context and in our wider lives as individuals. The manifesto grew out of the opportunities presented by starting a new role and was formulated through making sense of the new thinking, reflection and ideas prompted by that experience. It explores a variety of themes personal to the author, such as the importance of being intellectually engaged in the professional context, the value of positivity, innovation and ambitious thinking, and the importance of positive relationships with others built around emotional intelligence.
{"title":"How to strive for success, happiness, fulfilment and impact: a personal manifesto","authors":"Thomas Shaw","doi":"10.1629/uksg.552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.552","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the author’s ‘personal manifesto’. It describes the framework he devised to help him understand his style, preferences and needs in a professional context and explores the intersection of the professional and the personal, identifying links between how we think and act in the professional context and in our wider lives as individuals. The manifesto grew out of the opportunities presented by starting a new role and was formulated through making sense of the new thinking, reflection and ideas prompted by that experience. It explores a variety of themes personal to the author, such as the importance of being intellectually engaged in the professional context, the value of positivity, innovation and ambitious thinking, and the importance of positive relationships with others built around emotional intelligence.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86237143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many academic libraries evaluate their journal holdings with an emphasis on deselection rather than selection. Likewise, many consider each journal package or full-text database as a whole, through indicators such as cost per download, without explicitly accounting for the quality of the journals included in each package. Better results can be achieved through a two-stage process that first identifies the ‘wanted journals’ most important to the university’s teaching and research programs, then objectively determines the most cost-effective means of acquiring those journals. Our procedure combines an emphasis on the quality of individual journals with an iterative database/subscription selection method that minimizes costs and avoids any bias toward the journals initially held by the library. Although the process involves considerable effort, it can be used to increase the library’s holdings of wanted journals without increasing total expenditure, or to maintain the number of wanted journals while reducing total expenditure. Our results also demonstrate that title-by-title selection of journals is not inconsistent with acquisition through full-text databases.
{"title":"A two-stage approach to serials review: minimizing journal costs through title-by-title selection with package-based acquisition","authors":"W. H. Walters, Susanne Markgren","doi":"10.1629/uksg.550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.550","url":null,"abstract":"Many academic libraries evaluate their journal holdings with an emphasis on deselection rather than selection. Likewise, many consider each journal package or full-text database as a whole, through indicators such as cost per download, without explicitly accounting for the quality of the journals included in each package. Better results can be achieved through a two-stage process that first identifies the ‘wanted journals’ most important to the university’s teaching and research programs, then objectively determines the most cost-effective means of acquiring those journals. Our procedure combines an emphasis on the quality of individual journals with an iterative database/subscription selection method that minimizes costs and avoids any bias toward the journals initially held by the library. Although the process involves considerable effort, it can be used to increase the library’s holdings of wanted journals without increasing total expenditure, or to maintain the number of wanted journals while reducing total expenditure. Our results also demonstrate that title-by-title selection of journals is not inconsistent with acquisition through full-text databases.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81775542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Bosman, Hans de Jonge, Bianca Kramer, Jeroen Sondervan
The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at the qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The article first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest broadening the agenda by involving more types of actors and other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest deepening the open access agenda by including several open access dimensions: immediacy, diamond open access, open metadata, open peer review and open licences. To facilitate discussion, a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how, when and where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders) and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.
{"title":"Advancing open access in the Netherlands after 2020: from quantity to quality","authors":"J. Bosman, Hans de Jonge, Bianca Kramer, Jeroen Sondervan","doi":"10.1629/uksg.545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.545","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at the qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The article first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest broadening the agenda by involving more types of actors and other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest deepening the open access agenda by including several open access dimensions: immediacy, diamond open access, open metadata, open peer review and open licences. To facilitate discussion, a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how, when and where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders) and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86361209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.
{"title":"Game over: empower early career researchers to improve research quality","authors":"Véronique De Herde, M. Björnmalm, T. Susi","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.548","url":null,"abstract":"Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73680765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ‘Read at Leicester’ leisure reading collection was developed to encourage sustained reading for leisure amongst University of Leicester students. A key challenge in building this collection was not having any funds to develop it. It was important that the collection was representative of the diverse user population. In order to start putting the collection together, books already held in the library that were not on subject reading lists were identified. Throughout this process it became evident that, in order to achieve true representation within the collection, the library would need to work in collaboration with library users to develop it. A fund of £1,000 was secured to launch a campaign to purchase diverse books and build the collection. In October 2019, the Represent campaign was launched as a campaign through which library users could recommend titles from under-represented voices for the library to purchase. The Represent campaign has been live since October 2019 and, as of November 2020, a total of 199 requests have been received.
{"title":"Represent: building diverse library collections in collaboration with library users","authors":"Heena Karavadra","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.544","url":null,"abstract":"The ‘Read at Leicester’ leisure reading collection was developed to encourage sustained reading for leisure amongst University of Leicester students. A key challenge in building this collection was not having any funds to develop it. It was important that the collection was representative of the diverse user population. In order to start putting the collection together, books already held in the library that were not on subject reading lists were identified. Throughout this process it became evident that, in order to achieve true representation within the collection, the library would need to work in collaboration with library users to develop it. A fund of £1,000 was secured to launch a campaign to purchase diverse books and build the collection. In October 2019, the Represent campaign was launched as a campaign through which library users could recommend titles from under-represented voices for the library to purchase. The Represent campaign has been live since October 2019 and, as of November 2020, a total of 199 requests have been received.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85109421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?","authors":"R. Snijder","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.539","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49057246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his opinion piece criticizing the open access (OA) policies at Harvard University, Patrick Alexander makes several factual errors about the policies themselves and Harvard’s experience under them. In response, I discuss several relevant facts about Harvard OA policies, among them that the policies were adopted by faculty votes, not imposed by administrators; that under the policies, faculty only grant Harvard nonexclusive rights to new faculty articles, not exclusive rights or full copyright; that the policy-created Harvard OA license is merely a default that authors can easily waive for any given article; that the policies do not hinder Harvard faculty in publishing and do not limit their freedom to publish in the venues of their choice; and that the policies give Harvard faculty more rights, not fewer rights, over their own work than they typically get from their publishing contracts.
{"title":"Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander","authors":"Peter Suber","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.543","url":null,"abstract":"In his opinion piece criticizing the open access (OA) policies at Harvard University, Patrick Alexander makes several factual errors about the policies themselves and Harvard’s experience under them. In response, I discuss several relevant facts about Harvard OA policies, among them that the policies were adopted by faculty votes, not imposed by administrators; that under the policies, faculty only grant Harvard nonexclusive rights to new faculty articles, not exclusive rights or full copyright; that the policy-created Harvard OA license is merely a default that authors can easily waive for any given article; that the policies do not hinder Harvard faculty in publishing and do not limit their freedom to publish in the venues of their choice; and that the policies give Harvard faculty more rights, not fewer rights, over their own work than they typically get from their publishing contracts.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41612580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf.
{"title":"Copyright transfer in group-authored scientific\u0000 publications","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva, Aceil Al-Khatib","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.535","url":null,"abstract":"Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43959146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：