This book review is applicable and useful to those who engage with academic research, particularly researchers, librarians, students, administrators, and policy makers in the fields of library and information science (LIS), information systems, publishing studies, business, economics, and more broadly applicable to education and the social sciences and humanities. This book investigates the use of theory in open access research, and the relationship between open access theory and practice.
{"title":"Book review: Open access in theory and practice: The theory-practice relationship and openness.","authors":"Mara Bordignon","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.14460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.14460","url":null,"abstract":"This book review is applicable and useful to those who engage with academic research, particularly researchers, librarians, students, administrators, and policy makers in the fields of library and information science (LIS), information systems, publishing studies, business, economics, and more broadly applicable to education and the social sciences and humanities. This book investigates the use of theory in open access research, and the relationship between open access theory and practice. ","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43837184","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}
Chinese scholars, administrators, and librarians possess nuanced understandings of what defines open access in China and the barriers that make wider adoption of open access difficult. When we say "open access" in the United States, we imply a complex set of underlying assumptions tied to the history and practice of scholarship. Saying "open access" in China brings with it a similarly complex set of assumptions, which may not be commensurate with the "open access" we speak of, and such 1:1 translation may not be possible or desirable given the unique historical, political, and linguistic differences between the world's two largest producers and consumers of scholarship. Through a careful analysis of our participants' observations and a review of the history and context of Chinese academic institutions, we posit that "open access with Chinese characteristics" describes a set of possibilities and constraints that determine how Chinese academics experience both the theoretical project and the practical distribution method we commonly call "open access." While these multiple understandings of "open access" may not converge on a single, shared meaning, we can endeavor to understand one another better in the service of creating and sharing knowledge.
{"title":"Open Access with Chinese Characteristics: Understanding Recent History and Current Practice via Qualitative Interviews at a Large Chinese Research University","authors":"M. Kahn, Liangyu Fu","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.14071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.14071","url":null,"abstract":"Chinese scholars, administrators, and librarians possess nuanced understandings of what defines open access in China and the barriers that make wider adoption of open access difficult. When we say \"open access\" in the United States, we imply a complex set of underlying assumptions tied to the history and practice of scholarship. Saying \"open access\" in China brings with it a similarly complex set of assumptions, which may not be commensurate with the \"open access\" we speak of, and such 1:1 translation may not be possible or desirable given the unique historical, political, and linguistic differences between the world's two largest producers and consumers of scholarship. Through a careful analysis of our participants' observations and a review of the history and context of Chinese academic institutions, we posit that \"open access with Chinese characteristics\" describes a set of possibilities and constraints that determine how Chinese academics experience both the theoretical project and the practical distribution method we commonly call \"open access.\" While these multiple understandings of \"open access\" may not converge on a single, shared meaning, we can endeavor to understand one another better in the service of creating and sharing knowledge.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43325347","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}
Introduction. A growing number of academic libraries have specialized their support for scholarly communication by creating positions or expanding units with a focus on providing relevant services. This study was undertaken to explore the extent to which librarians with scholarly communication responsibilities produce research and scholarship, their motivations for doing so, the nature of that productivity, and the perceived impact of that activity on their professional responsibilities. Method. The authors administered a survey of librarians who identified as having their primary job responsibilities in scholarly communication. Results. Almost all study participants produced their own scholarly work. However, a high percentage indicated they received no relevant training in their library degree programs, and the majority experienced imposter syndrome pertaining to their own scholarship. Many respondents indicated the term “scholarly communication(s)” was in their professional titles, but open education services were also part of their portfolios. Although most respondents were motivated to produce research by institutional expectations for promotion and tenure, greater percentages were driven by personal or professional interests. In addition, participants indicated a strong correlation between producing their own scholarship and their ability to effectively carry out their professional responsibilities. Discussion. There may be an emerging convention for scholarly communication librarianship: one that includes open education services. Findings suggest a need for scholarly communication training to be more prominent in library degree programs. They also point to the utility of making research production a job requirement, regardless of institutional expectations for professional advancement. Conclusion. The authors argue for adjustments in library education curricula and the inclusion of research production in the portfolios of scholarly communication librarians. Future research directions are proposed.
{"title":"Research Productivity among Scholarly Communication Librarians","authors":"Christopher V. Hollister, J. Jensen","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.15621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.15621","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. A growing number of academic libraries have specialized their support for scholarly communication by creating positions or expanding units with a focus on providing relevant services. This study was undertaken to explore the extent to which librarians with scholarly communication responsibilities produce research and scholarship, their motivations for doing so, the nature of that productivity, and the perceived impact of that activity on their professional responsibilities. Method. The authors administered a survey of librarians who identified as having their primary job responsibilities in scholarly communication. Results. Almost all study participants produced their own scholarly work. However, a high percentage indicated they received no relevant training in their library degree programs, and the majority experienced imposter syndrome pertaining to their own scholarship. Many respondents indicated the term “scholarly communication(s)” was in their professional titles, but open education services were also part of their portfolios. Although most respondents were motivated to produce research by institutional expectations for promotion and tenure, greater percentages were driven by personal or professional interests. In addition, participants indicated a strong correlation between producing their own scholarship and their ability to effectively carry out their professional responsibilities. Discussion. There may be an emerging convention for scholarly communication librarianship: one that includes open education services. Findings suggest a need for scholarly communication training to be more prominent in library degree programs. They also point to the utility of making research production a job requirement, regardless of institutional expectations for professional advancement. Conclusion. The authors argue for adjustments in library education curricula and the inclusion of research production in the portfolios of scholarly communication librarians. Future research directions are proposed. ","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43991257","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}
L. Grote, Alexandra Howard, L. Reynolds, Renesha Chandler
Abstract Introduction: This article highlights the importance of providing accessible scholarly publishing education and support to graduate students through presenting a case study of how the University of Louisville’s Publishing Academy was modified to be fully online and intentionally focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).Literature Review: The literature review examines existing scholarship related to publishing support for graduate students, focusing on literature discussing the importance of publishing for doctoral students and describing successful publishing and writing support programs. Overview of Publishing Academy: University of Louisville’s Publishing Academy is a biennial scholarly publishing program for graduate students founded in 2017. Planning and execution of the Spring 2021 iteration of the academy occurred during the global COVID-19 pandemic and during a time of national civil unrest due to racial inequity and injustice. The context of the times necessitated changes be made to the Publishing Academy, including moving the academy to a fully virtual format and intentionally focusing on DEI in developing academy sessions and faculty panels. Next Steps: Next steps for the Publishing Academy are considered based on participant feedback and organizer observations.
摘要:本文通过路易斯维尔大学出版学院(University of Louisville’s publishing Academy)的一个案例研究，强调了为研究生提供可访问的学术出版教育和支持的重要性，该学院是如何被修改为完全在线的，并有意地关注多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)。文献综述:文献综述考察了与研究生出版支持相关的现有奖学金，重点是讨论出版对博士生重要性的文献，并描述了成功的出版和写作支持计划。出版学院概述:路易斯维尔大学出版学院是一个两年一次的研究生学术出版计划，成立于2017年。学院2021年春季课程的规划和执行正值全球2019冠状病毒病大流行和种族不平等和不公正导致的全国内乱时期。时代的背景要求对出版学院进行改革，包括将学院转变为完全虚拟的形式，并有意地在发展学院会议和教师小组讨论中关注DEI。下一步:出版学院的下一步是根据参与者的反馈和组织者的观察来考虑的。
{"title":"Increasing Access to Graduate Student Publishing Support: A Case Study of Reformatting the Publishing Academy","authors":"L. Grote, Alexandra Howard, L. Reynolds, Renesha Chandler","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.15661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.15661","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction: This article highlights the importance of providing accessible scholarly publishing education and support to graduate students through presenting a case study of how the University of Louisville’s Publishing Academy was modified to be fully online and intentionally focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).Literature Review: The literature review examines existing scholarship related to publishing support for graduate students, focusing on literature discussing the importance of publishing for doctoral students and describing successful publishing and writing support programs. Overview of Publishing Academy: University of Louisville’s Publishing Academy is a biennial scholarly publishing program for graduate students founded in 2017. Planning and execution of the Spring 2021 iteration of the academy occurred during the global COVID-19 pandemic and during a time of national civil unrest due to racial inequity and injustice. The context of the times necessitated changes be made to the Publishing Academy, including moving the academy to a fully virtual format and intentionally focusing on DEI in developing academy sessions and faculty panels. Next Steps: Next steps for the Publishing Academy are considered based on participant feedback and organizer observations. ","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44722202","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}
Jack E. Peplinski, J. Paterson, Courtney L. Waugh, Joshua M. Pearce
aperta-accessum,which: i) harvests names and emails from adepartments faculty webpage, ii) identifies scholars’ Open Researcherand Contributor IDs (ORCID iDs), iii)obtains digital object identifiers (DOIs) of publications for each scholar, iv) checks for existingcopies in an institution’s OA repository, v) identifies the legal opportunitiesto provide OA versions of all of the articles not already in the OA repository,vi) sends authors emails requesting a simple upload of author manuscripts, andvii) adds link harvested metadata from DOIs with uploaded preprint into OArepository. The results of this study show that inthe administrative time needed to open access a single document manually, aperta-accessum can process approximatelyfive entire departments worth of peer-reviewed articles. Following best practices discussed, it is clear this open sourceOA harvester enables institutional library’s stewardship of OA knowledge on themass-scale for radically reduced costs.
aperta accessum，它：i）从院系教师网页中获取姓名和电子邮件，ii）识别学者的开放研究者和贡献者ID（ORCID ID ID），iii）获得每个学者出版物的数字对象标识符（DOI），iv）检查机构OA存储库中是否存在副本，v）确定提供尚未在OA存储库中的所有文章的OA版本的法律机会，vi）向作者发送电子邮件，请求简单上传作者手稿，以及vii）将从DOI获得的链接元数据与上传的预印本添加到OA存储库。这项研究的结果表明，在手动打开单个文档访问权限所需的管理时间内，一个访问权限可以处理大约五个部门的同行评审文章。根据所讨论的最佳实践，很明显，这种开源OA采集器能够使机构图书馆在大范围内管理OA知识，从而大幅降低成本。
{"title":"Free and Open Source Automated Open Access Preprint Harvesting","authors":"Jack E. Peplinski, J. Paterson, Courtney L. Waugh, Joshua M. Pearce","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.14421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.14421","url":null,"abstract":"aperta-accessum,which: i) harvests names and emails from adepartments faculty webpage, ii) identifies scholars’ Open Researcherand Contributor IDs (ORCID iDs), iii)obtains digital object identifiers (DOIs) of publications for each scholar, iv) checks for existingcopies in an institution’s OA repository, v) identifies the legal opportunitiesto provide OA versions of all of the articles not already in the OA repository,vi) sends authors emails requesting a simple upload of author manuscripts, andvii) adds link harvested metadata from DOIs with uploaded preprint into OArepository. The results of this study show that inthe administrative time needed to open access a single document manually, aperta-accessum can process approximatelyfive entire departments worth of peer-reviewed articles. Following best practices discussed, it is clear this open sourceOA harvester enables institutional library’s stewardship of OA knowledge on themass-scale for radically reduced costs. ","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46455120","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}
Today’s researchers expect to be able to complete text and data mining (TDM) work on many types of textual data. But they are often blocked more by contractual limitations on what data they can use, and how they can use it, than they are on what data may be available to them. This article lays out the different types of TDM processes currently in use, the issues that may block researchers from being able to do the work they would like, and some possible solutions.
{"title":"Licensing Challenges Associated With Text and Data Mining: How Do We Get Our Patrons What They Need?","authors":"Peter Mccracken, Emma Raub","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.15530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.15530","url":null,"abstract":"Today’s researchers expect to be able to complete text and data mining (TDM) work on many types of textual data. But they are often blocked more by contractual limitations on what data they can use, and how they can use it, than they are on what data may be available to them. This article lays out the different types of TDM processes currently in use, the issues that may block researchers from being able to do the work they would like, and some possible solutions.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47563228","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}
INTRODUCTION Libraries’collections budgets are becoming less effective in covering subscriptions dueto inflation and stagnation, requiring creative solutions to providing researchmaterials to the campus. This investigation sought to determine an institution’sfaculty tolerances for publishing in and using open access (OA) materials, aswell as to identify the mechanisms that would shift perceptions of OApublishing to a more favorable light, thereby fostering adoption in facultyresearch and teaching. METHODS Anonymous electronic survey of 468 facultymembers with a response rate of 34%. RESULTS Respondents indicated a mixed setof adoption, with equal distribution in willingness to use open access. Qualityof OA publications, combined with concerns for tenure and promotion, holdsfaculty back in utilizing OA journals and publications for their own researchand in the classroom. CONCLUSION Library employees and faculty alike wouldbenefit from understanding one another's work. Faculty would benefit from bothan understanding of various OA models and how to distinguish among them, aswell as how to evaluate the quality of publications. An institution-wideunderstanding of Open Access should be created and adopted with significantinput from faculty and librarians. Finally, faculty should be provided a coursebuyout or similar incentive to become an editor for an OA journal to buildtrust in the quality of open access publishing. The perceptions should betracked regularly through further deployment of surveys to ensure progress.
{"title":"Faculty Perceptions of Open Access Publishing: Incentives for Adoption","authors":"Elisabeth Shook, A. Vecchione","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.13216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.13216","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Libraries’collections budgets are becoming less effective in covering subscriptions dueto inflation and stagnation, requiring creative solutions to providing researchmaterials to the campus. This investigation sought to determine an institution’sfaculty tolerances for publishing in and using open access (OA) materials, aswell as to identify the mechanisms that would shift perceptions of OApublishing to a more favorable light, thereby fostering adoption in facultyresearch and teaching. METHODS Anonymous electronic survey of 468 facultymembers with a response rate of 34%. RESULTS Respondents indicated a mixed setof adoption, with equal distribution in willingness to use open access. Qualityof OA publications, combined with concerns for tenure and promotion, holdsfaculty back in utilizing OA journals and publications for their own researchand in the classroom. CONCLUSION Library employees and faculty alike wouldbenefit from understanding one another's work. Faculty would benefit from bothan understanding of various OA models and how to distinguish among them, aswell as how to evaluate the quality of publications. An institution-wideunderstanding of Open Access should be created and adopted with significantinput from faculty and librarians. Finally, faculty should be provided a coursebuyout or similar incentive to become an editor for an OA journal to buildtrust in the quality of open access publishing. The perceptions should betracked regularly through further deployment of surveys to ensure progress.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45784132","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}
Research data services have increasingly become a feature of academic libraries. In this paper, we provide an internal assessment of consulting reach and effectiveness for our Data Services provided by the University Libraries at Virginia Tech using client records from 2016 to 2020. Through this assessment we explore how service growth and reach across Virginia Tech has evolved with time. We also look more closely at these aspects for one college and discuss how we will use this data to assess the impact of our services. Finally, through the lens of client outcomes, we examine the trends of client interactions over the term of the study. Initially, we envisioned a successful service as one useful to the largest number of entities (primarily colleges and institutes) across Virginia Tech. However, analysis of the data gathered over the past four years leads us to consider targeting our service growth where it might be most useful. Rather than prioritizing services that are useful to the largest number of researchers, instead we could (and perhaps should) prioritize engagement with researchers and research communities for whom our assistance can make the largest positive impact. This assessment of our client data demonstrates the utility of detailed client management records for periodic formative and summative assessment of research data services.
{"title":"An Assessment of Research Data Services Through Client Interaction Records","authors":"J. Petters, A. Ogier, Amr B. Hilal","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.14439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.14439","url":null,"abstract":"Research data services have increasingly become a feature of academic libraries. In this paper, we provide an internal assessment of consulting reach and effectiveness for our Data Services provided by the University Libraries at Virginia Tech using client records from 2016 to 2020. Through this assessment we explore how service growth and reach across Virginia Tech has evolved with time. We also look more closely at these aspects for one college and discuss how we will use this data to assess the impact of our services. Finally, through the lens of client outcomes, we examine the trends of client interactions over the term of the study. Initially, we envisioned a successful service as one useful to the largest number of entities (primarily colleges and institutes) across Virginia Tech. However, analysis of the data gathered over the past four years leads us to consider targeting our service growth where it might be most useful. Rather than prioritizing services that are useful to the largest number of researchers, instead we could (and perhaps should) prioritize engagement with researchers and research communities for whom our assistance can make the largest positive impact. This assessment of our client data demonstrates the utility of detailed client management records for periodic formative and summative assessment of research data services.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44900564","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}
Research data management (RDM) encompasses a wide range of activities that include documenting and managing data during a research project, as well as sharing and preserving data after the research project is completed. Academic libraries can offer a variety of services that support researchers during the research life cycle which vary among institutions. The faculty, staff, and graduate students of Clemson University were surveyed by Clemson Libraries about their research data management (RDM) needs in the spring of 2021. The survey was based on previous surveys from 2012 and 2016 to allow for comparison, but language was updated and additional questions added because the field of RDM has evolved. Survey findings indicated researchers are overall more likely to back up and share their data, but the process of cleaning and preparing the data for sharing was an obstacle. Few researchers reported including metadata when sharing, or consulting the library for help writing a Data Management Plan (DMP). Researchers want RDM resources, and offering and effectively marketing those resources will enable libraries to both support researchers and encourage best practices. Understanding researcher needs and offering time-saving services and convenient training options makes following RDM best practices easier for researchers. Communicating how RDM benefits researchers and integrating RDS into the research life cycle through partnerships is crucial for ensuring effective data management.
{"title":"Research Data Management needs assessment of Clemson University","authors":"M. Sheffield, Karen B Burton","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.13970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.13970","url":null,"abstract":"Research data management (RDM) encompasses a wide range of activities that include documenting and managing data during a research project, as well as sharing and preserving data after the research project is completed. Academic libraries can offer a variety of services that support researchers during the research life cycle which vary among institutions. The faculty, staff, and graduate students of Clemson University were surveyed by Clemson Libraries about their research data management (RDM) needs in the spring of 2021. The survey was based on previous surveys from 2012 and 2016 to allow for comparison, but language was updated and additional questions added because the field of RDM has evolved. Survey findings indicated researchers are overall more likely to back up and share their data, but the process of cleaning and preparing the data for sharing was an obstacle. Few researchers reported including metadata when sharing, or consulting the library for help writing a Data Management Plan (DMP). Researchers want RDM resources, and offering and effectively marketing those resources will enable libraries to both support researchers and encourage best practices. Understanding researcher needs and offering time-saving services and convenient training options makes following RDM best practices easier for researchers. Communicating how RDM benefits researchers and integrating RDS into the research life cycle through partnerships is crucial for ensuring effective data management.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48292816","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}
Meg M Eastwood, J. Bowers, Jenelys Cox, Jack M. Maness
INTRODUCTION: This mixed-method study analyzes the self-archiving behaviors and underlying motivations of researchers at a Carnegie-Classified Doctoral - High Research Activity (R2) institution with significant increases in research activities. METHODS: A quantitative analysis of data provided by CHORUS, a multi-institutional open access (OA) infrastructure project designed to minimize the administrative costs of complying with federal public access mandates, was followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers to determine the underlying motivations for self-archiving research papers resulting from federal grant support. RESULTS: Fifty-one authors with federal research funding published seventy-nine journal articles. One-hundred and thirty-nine OA versions of these seventy-nine articles were intentionally made available by researchers across nine types of platforms, including and in addition to those provided by publishers. Interviews with ten investigators revealed motivators such as a dedication to public access to knowledge, learned behaviors in specific disciplines, and enlightened self-interest. Challenges included concern regarding confidentiality, confusion about intellectual property and funder requirements, administrative overhead, and integrity of the scholarly record. DISCUSSION: Despite concerns and a lack of an OA mandate and other drivers more commonly present at larger, more research-intensive universities, several researchers interviewed actively engaged in self-archiving article versions, not always with clear motivations. These findings have implications for both scholarly communications and collection development services. CONCLUSION: These quantitative and qualitative data informed the creation of three distinct personas intended to help librarians at similar universities design services in manners that align with investigator motivations.
{"title":"One size does not fit all: Self-archiving personas based on federally-funded researchers at a mid-sized private institution","authors":"Meg M Eastwood, J. Bowers, Jenelys Cox, Jack M. Maness","doi":"10.31274/jlsc.13886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.13886","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: This mixed-method study analyzes the self-archiving behaviors and underlying motivations of researchers at a Carnegie-Classified Doctoral - High Research Activity (R2) institution with significant increases in research activities. METHODS: A quantitative analysis of data provided by CHORUS, a multi-institutional open access (OA) infrastructure project designed to minimize the administrative costs of complying with federal public access mandates, was followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers to determine the underlying motivations for self-archiving research papers resulting from federal grant support. RESULTS: Fifty-one authors with federal research funding published seventy-nine journal articles. One-hundred and thirty-nine OA versions of these seventy-nine articles were intentionally made available by researchers across nine types of platforms, including and in addition to those provided by publishers. Interviews with ten investigators revealed motivators such as a dedication to public access to knowledge, learned behaviors in specific disciplines, and enlightened self-interest. Challenges included concern regarding confidentiality, confusion about intellectual property and funder requirements, administrative overhead, and integrity of the scholarly record. DISCUSSION: Despite concerns and a lack of an OA mandate and other drivers more commonly present at larger, more research-intensive universities, several researchers interviewed actively engaged in self-archiving article versions, not always with clear motivations. These findings have implications for both scholarly communications and collection development services. CONCLUSION: These quantitative and qualitative data informed the creation of three distinct personas intended to help librarians at similar universities design services in manners that align with investigator motivations.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42850133","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：