INTRODUCTION This study is the first to consider how academic librarians’ understanding of and participation in the peer review process influences their information literacy pedagogy and practice. METHODS This mixed-methods study uses a modified sequential explanatory design, beginning with a survey of academic librarians in the United States and Canada, followed by interviews with interested study participants. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The researchers find that academic librarians frequently teach about peer review, but approaches vary widely, and though some have adapted the Framework to fit their instruction about peer review, there are no best practices. Instructor demands, the length of instructional sessions, and student level influence whether and how academic librarians contextualize the peer review process. While some academic librarians draw from their personal experience in the peer review process as authors, reviewers, and/or editors in their teaching, academic librarians do not consistently report their personal experience as an influence on their teaching of the peer review process to students. CONCLUSION This article argues that academic librarians should consider the place of peer review in information literacy instruction, including interrogating how scaffolding instruction about peer review may provide a disservice to students from an equity perspective. The authors urge academic librarians who have it to draw on personal experience to contextualize their instruction about peer review.
{"title":"Problematizing Peer Review: Academic Librarians’ Pedagogical Approaches to Peer Review","authors":"L. Wood, Gr Keer","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2399","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION This study is the first to consider how academic librarians’ understanding of and participation in the peer review process influences their information literacy pedagogy and practice. METHODS This mixed-methods study uses a modified sequential explanatory design, beginning with a survey of academic librarians in the United States and Canada, followed by interviews with interested study participants. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The researchers find that academic librarians frequently teach about peer review, but approaches vary widely, and though some have adapted the Framework to fit their instruction about peer review, there are no best practices. Instructor demands, the length of instructional sessions, and student level influence whether and how academic librarians contextualize the peer review process. While some academic librarians draw from their personal experience in the peer review process as authors, reviewers, and/or editors in their teaching, academic librarians do not consistently report their personal experience as an influence on their teaching of the peer review process to students. CONCLUSION This article argues that academic librarians should consider the place of peer review in information literacy instruction, including interrogating how scaffolding instruction about peer review may provide a disservice to students from an equity perspective. The authors urge academic librarians who have it to draw on personal experience to contextualize their instruction about peer review.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2399"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48825234","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 Institutional repositories (IRs) present universities with an opportunity to provide global open access (OA) to their scholarship, however, this avenue was underutilised in two of the three universities in this study. This study aimed at proposing interventions to improve access to research output in IRs in universities in East Africa, and it adds to the depth of knowledge on IRs by pointing out the factors that limit OA in IRs, some of which include lack of government and funder support for OA and mediated content collection workflows that hardly involved seeking author permission to self-archive. METHODS A mixed methods approach, following a concurrent strategy was used to investigate the low level of OA in IRs. Data was collected from three purposively selected IRs in universities in East Africa, using self-administered questionnaires from 183 researchers and face-to-face interviews from six librarians. results The findings revealed that content was collected on a voluntary basis, with most of the research output deposited in the IR without the authors’ knowledge. The respondents in this study were, however, supportive of the activities of the IR, and would participate in providing research output in the IR as OA if required to do so. CONCLUSION The low level of OA in IRs in universities in East Africa could be increased by improving the IR workflow, collection development, and marketing processes. Self-archiving could be improved by increasing the researchers’ awareness and knowledge of OA and importance of IRs, while addressing their concerns about copyright infringement.
{"title":"An analysis of the factors affecting open access to research output in institutional repositories in selected universities in East Africa","authors":"Miriam Kakai","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2276","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Institutional repositories (IRs) present universities with an opportunity to provide global open access (OA) to their scholarship, however, this avenue was underutilised in two of the three universities in this study. This study aimed at proposing interventions to improve access to research output in IRs in universities in East Africa, and it adds to the depth of knowledge on IRs by pointing out the factors that limit OA in IRs, some of which include lack of government and funder support for OA and mediated content collection workflows that hardly involved seeking author permission to self-archive. METHODS A mixed methods approach, following a concurrent strategy was used to investigate the low level of OA in IRs. Data was collected from three purposively selected IRs in universities in East Africa, using self-administered questionnaires from 183 researchers and face-to-face interviews from six librarians. results The findings revealed that content was collected on a voluntary basis, with most of the research output deposited in the IR without the authors’ knowledge. The respondents in this study were, however, supportive of the activities of the IR, and would participate in providing research output in the IR as OA if required to do so. CONCLUSION The low level of OA in IRs in universities in East Africa could be increased by improving the IR workflow, collection development, and marketing processes. Self-archiving could be improved by increasing the researchers’ awareness and knowledge of OA and importance of IRs, while addressing their concerns about copyright infringement.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43839166","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 US universities are increasingly unable to afford research journal subscriptions due to the rising prices charged by for-profit academic publishers. Open access (OA) appears to be the most backed option to disrupt the current publishing model. The purpose of this study is to understand the factors significant to the introduction of institutional OA policies at selected United States R-1 universities. METHODS An in-depth qualitative study, including interviews with stakeholders, was conducted on two R-1universities with OA policies that have been implemented for at least five years. results The results of this study reveal that while the perceived sustainability of the scholarly communication business model was an initial driver, open dissemination of knowledge was the primary factor for the development of institutional policies. discussion Open dissemination of knowledge aligns with the mission of both institutions. Interviewees believe that a wider and more open dissemination of the institution’s research cost could positively affect their faculty’s research impact, which could then affect the institution’s reputation, rankings, classifications and funding. CONCLUSION While the initial driver for exploring OA scholarly communication for both institutions was the perceived unsustainability of the scholarly communication model, the most important factor that led to the creation of their policies was the desire to disseminate the faculty’s scholarship.
{"title":"The Factors Significant to the Introduction of Institutional Open Access Policies: Two Case Studies of R-1 Universities","authors":"Leo S. Lo","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2400","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION US universities are increasingly unable to afford research journal subscriptions due to the rising prices charged by for-profit academic publishers. Open access (OA) appears to be the most backed option to disrupt the current publishing model. The purpose of this study is to understand the factors significant to the introduction of institutional OA policies at selected United States R-1 universities. METHODS An in-depth qualitative study, including interviews with stakeholders, was conducted on two R-1universities with OA policies that have been implemented for at least five years. results The results of this study reveal that while the perceived sustainability of the scholarly communication business model was an initial driver, open dissemination of knowledge was the primary factor for the development of institutional policies. discussion Open dissemination of knowledge aligns with the mission of both institutions. Interviewees believe that a wider and more open dissemination of the institution’s research cost could positively affect their faculty’s research impact, which could then affect the institution’s reputation, rankings, classifications and funding. CONCLUSION While the initial driver for exploring OA scholarly communication for both institutions was the perceived unsustainability of the scholarly communication model, the most important factor that led to the creation of their policies was the desire to disseminate the faculty’s scholarship.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43613798","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}
This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.
{"title":"From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access","authors":"Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2395","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47978646","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}
Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.
{"title":"The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?","authors":"R. Dudley","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2345","url":null,"abstract":"Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41861766","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}
Adoption of good research data management practices is increasingly important for research teams. Despite the work the research community has done to define best data management practices, these practices are still difficult to adopt for many research teams. Universities all around the world have been offering Research Data Services to help their research groups, and libraries are usually an important part of these services. A better understanding of the pressures and factors that affect research teams may help librarians serve these groups more effectively. The social interactions between the members of a research team are a key element that influences the likelihood of a research group successfully adopting best practices in data management. In this article we adapt the Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) to explain the variables that can influence whether new and better, data management practices will be adopted by a research group. We describe six moderating variables: size of the team, disciplinary culture, group culture and leadership, team heterogeneity, funder, and dataset decisions. We also develop three research group personas as a way of navigating the UTAUT model, and as a tool Research Data Services practitioners can use to target interactions between librarians and research groups to make them more effective.
{"title":"Why Won’t They Just Adopt Good Research Data Management Practices? An Exploration of Research Teams and Librarians’ Role in Facilitating RDM Adoption","authors":"C. Llebot, H. Rempel","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2321","url":null,"abstract":"Adoption of good research data management practices is increasingly important for research teams. Despite the work the research community has done to define best data management practices, these practices are still difficult to adopt for many research teams. Universities all around the world have been offering Research Data Services to help their research groups, and libraries are usually an important part of these services. A better understanding of the pressures and factors that affect research teams may help librarians serve these groups more effectively. The social interactions between the members of a research team are a key element that influences the likelihood of a research group successfully adopting best practices in data management. In this article we adapt the Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) to explain the variables that can influence whether new and better, data management practices will be adopted by a research group. We describe six moderating variables: size of the team, disciplinary culture, group culture and leadership, team heterogeneity, funder, and dataset decisions. We also develop three research group personas as a way of navigating the UTAUT model, and as a tool Research Data Services practitioners can use to target interactions between librarians and research groups to make them more effective.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46693217","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: When U.S. News & World Report announced that it would rank law schools’ scholarly impact, U.S. News asked law schools to work with HeinOnline, a legal database, to ensure the accuracy of the database-created faculty author profiles because they would be using Hein’s database to gather citation metrics to measure scholarly impact. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: This practice article describes a project at UNC Chapel Hill in the law library to ensure that their faculty publications were included in HeinOnline’s database and that HeinOnline Author Profiles were accurate. This case study helps librarians tackling either similar law library projects or similar projects throughout academia as metrics gathering for scholarly impact in a variety of manners, including educational rankings, becomes more prevalent. NEXT STEPS: Following this project, Hein contacted UNC to inform the law library they had identified an additional 119 articles for faculty members not previously attached to UNC faculty Hein Author Profiles. Some implications from this project are unclear and changing methodology, scalability issues, authority control concerns, lack of capturing interdisciplinary works, and an increased workload for librarians. Librarians, especially Scholarly Communications Librarians, are well equipped to promote our faculty’s scholarship by understanding the methodology of these educational ranking systems and by connecting our faculty and their research to the database tools of our field. This article represents just one field, but the implications apply more broadly.
{"title":"Using Law School Faculty Author Profiles to Promote Impact: The U.S. News & World Report Saga Continues","authors":"Allison Symulevich","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2386","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: When U.S. News & World Report announced that it would rank law schools’ scholarly impact, U.S. News asked law schools to work with HeinOnline, a legal database, to ensure the accuracy of the database-created faculty author profiles because they would be using Hein’s database to gather citation metrics to measure scholarly impact. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: This practice article describes a project at UNC Chapel Hill in the law library to ensure that their faculty publications were included in HeinOnline’s database and that HeinOnline Author Profiles were accurate. This case study helps librarians tackling either similar law library projects or similar projects throughout academia as metrics gathering for scholarly impact in a variety of manners, including educational rankings, becomes more prevalent. NEXT STEPS: Following this project, Hein contacted UNC to inform the law library they had identified an additional 119 articles for faculty members not previously attached to UNC faculty Hein Author Profiles. Some implications from this project are unclear and changing methodology, scalability issues, authority control concerns, lack of capturing interdisciplinary works, and an increased workload for librarians. Librarians, especially Scholarly Communications Librarians, are well equipped to promote our faculty’s scholarship by understanding the methodology of these educational ranking systems and by connecting our faculty and their research to the database tools of our field. This article represents just one field, but the implications apply more broadly.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41911859","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 have proposed institutional repositories as a means of providing universal access to university research. However, in recent years, it has become clear that universities and libraries have neglected web accessibility in constructing services including open access publishing programs. METHODS To better understand accessibility practices in relation to institutional repositories, survey responses were collected from repository managers. The survey consisted of five multiple choice and two open-ended questions regarding remediation and accessibility practices used by repository managers. RESULTS & DISCUSSION While the importance of accessibility has been well documented, survey responses showed that few policies and practices have been put in place to ensure accessibility in institutional repositories. Key barriers to accessibility included lack of organizational resources, lack of time, inadequate training, and product restrictions. CONCLUSION These results suggest that accessibility should be prioritized in future creation of policies and allocation of library resources.
{"title":"Centering Accessibility: A Review of Institutional Repository Policy and Practice","authors":"Talea Anderson, Chelsea Leachman","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2383","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Libraries have proposed institutional repositories as a means of providing universal access to university research. However, in recent years, it has become clear that universities and libraries have neglected web accessibility in constructing services including open access publishing programs. METHODS To better understand accessibility practices in relation to institutional repositories, survey responses were collected from repository managers. The survey consisted of five multiple choice and two open-ended questions regarding remediation and accessibility practices used by repository managers. RESULTS & DISCUSSION While the importance of accessibility has been well documented, survey responses showed that few policies and practices have been put in place to ensure accessibility in institutional repositories. Key barriers to accessibility included lack of organizational resources, lack of time, inadequate training, and product restrictions. CONCLUSION These results suggest that accessibility should be prioritized in future creation of policies and allocation of library resources.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46693271","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 Academic libraries are placing increasing emphasis on the provision of instruction for graduate students in non-traditional research skills and competencies such as scholarly communication concepts, data management and visualization, and text mining. Since proficiency in these concepts is often expected of graduate students but training may not be offered in the classroom, the library is a natural home for such instruction. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Librarians at the University of South Carolina created a two-day workshop series for graduate students called SHARPGrads. This paper describes the planning process, survey method used to develop and assess the program, and findings obtained from attendance and survey responses. A successful collaboration with the university’s Graduate School led to higher than expected registration. Post-assessment feedback demonstrates that targeting training to graduate students early in their program of study is advantageous. Furthermore, students in social sciences and humanities disciplines reported that SHARPGrads met their expectations to a higher degree than students in the sciences and health sciences. Although a number of survey respondents reported that the training program was too short, participant retention during day two of the program dropped significantly. NEXT STEPS An evaluation of the range of second day training opportunities is considered for the next iteration of the program. Results taken from this study and recommendations for future programs will be useful for librarians involved in the development and implementation of workshops for graduate students.
{"title":"SHARPGrads: Development and Assessment of a Research Skills Workshop Program for Graduate Students at the University of South Carolina","authors":"S. Winchester, Amie Freeman","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2372","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Academic libraries are placing increasing emphasis on the provision of instruction for graduate students in non-traditional research skills and competencies such as scholarly communication concepts, data management and visualization, and text mining. Since proficiency in these concepts is often expected of graduate students but training may not be offered in the classroom, the library is a natural home for such instruction. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Librarians at the University of South Carolina created a two-day workshop series for graduate students called SHARPGrads. This paper describes the planning process, survey method used to develop and assess the program, and findings obtained from attendance and survey responses. A successful collaboration with the university’s Graduate School led to higher than expected registration. Post-assessment feedback demonstrates that targeting training to graduate students early in their program of study is advantageous. Furthermore, students in social sciences and humanities disciplines reported that SHARPGrads met their expectations to a higher degree than students in the sciences and health sciences. Although a number of survey respondents reported that the training program was too short, participant retention during day two of the program dropped significantly. NEXT STEPS An evaluation of the range of second day training opportunities is considered for the next iteration of the program. Results taken from this study and recommendations for future programs will be useful for librarians involved in the development and implementation of workshops for graduate students.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46869853","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 This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts. METHODOLOGY The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019. The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing. RESULTS Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output. OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications. DISCUSSION More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models. Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models. CONCLUSION Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing. However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.
{"title":"Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University","authors":"Susan Vandagriff","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2392","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts. METHODOLOGY The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019. The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing. RESULTS Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output. OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications. DISCUSSION More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models. Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models. CONCLUSION Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing. However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47610357","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：