Home 9 Against the Grain 9 v28 #2 And They Were There

v28 #2 And They Were There

by | Jun 28, 2016 | 0 comments

Reports of Meetings — APE 2016 and 35th Annual Charleston Conference

Column Editor: Sever Bordeianu  (Head, Print Resources Section, University Libraries, MSC05 3020, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM  87131-0001;  Phone: 505-277-2645;  Fax: 505-277-9813)

APE 2016 Academic Publishing in Europe “The Digital Agenda: The Road Ahead for Scholarly Communication” — Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin, Germany — January 19-20 2016

Reported by:  Anthony Watkinson  (Consultant)


APE is a distinctively European meeting now in year 11.  Arnoud deKemp (once of Springer) is the highly-visible organiser and overall chair.  It is his home ground and the location in and around the beautiful Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin Mitte is chosen carefully to showcase the city.  The word “distinctively” is used because the origin of the event relates to the need felt by some senior Continental European publishers for a counterbalance to the increasingly Anglo-American dominance of STM publishing.  There is now no overt rivalry between APE and the big STM meetings and indeed STM are major sponsors.  At the start of the series there were more librarians among registrants and more smaller German publishers, both university presses and mainly German language commercial houses, than there are now and also more presentations on books: it made for a different mix.  Now the agenda is essentially an international STM one but yet different because the big themes are different in Europe particularly in relation to the open agenda and especially open access and its progress.

The number attending is always limited to about 200 because of the capacity of the splendid Leibnitz Hall of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and, as usual, there was a waiting list.  The whole of the main conference was videoed and the video can be found at http://river-valley.zeeba.tv/conferences/ape-2016.  The main conference site is at http://www.ape2016.eu/index.html.  There was a pre-conference on 18 January with a different attendance (about 80) and organisation, which was not videoed.

For this report I am picking out a number of the main themes expressed in the sessions.  These are transformation of the scholarly communication system, flipping the subscription model for journals to an open access one, open science, and principles of sharing at the higher policy level, and secondly a number of presentations on the mechanics of change including such topics as friction in the work flow, reputation mechanisms, and “digital plumbing.”  Then there were funders.  There was a final panel on publication ethics.

The pre-conference concentrated on the way that the digital revolution has impacted on the publishing business.  Digital publishers need a different skillset than they did ten years ago.  The organiser wrote: “The days of lifelong employability are behind us, and in order to make a living and add value to scholarly communication we, as people working in the industry, have to adapt.”  Librarians will share these sentiments from a library viewpoint.  The speakers talked about so-called millennials.  They do not want to be tied down to long-term employment and regular hours.  They want a flatter hierarchy.  Publishers want flexibility and new skills but I am not sure that the two needs (as described) actually match.  One contributor challenged assumptions about millennials who are now early career researchers — a new research project is actually asking them about their attitudes — see http://www.ciber-research.eu/harbingers.html.

The main conference started with another assumption.  In the EU the concept of open science is espoused by the eurocracy.  The speaker Barend Mons is one of their evangelists.  He runs the European Open Science Cloud.  Researchers should make all research objects available to machine mining or they are not serving science is a controversial view among most researchers but it was argued for with some panache and at a level of detail which is impossible to reproduce — see the video.  There are also those who adhere to the view that all journals must be open access.  The problem for existing journals is the economics of flipping.  Ralf Schimmer of the Max Planck Digital Library explained how, according to his calculations, flipping from a subscription model to an open access model need not involve extra costs.  The most recent exposition of his ideas is in a publication repository — http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=escidoc:2148961Schimmer hopes that governments will become more active in enforcing transformation.  Europeans are keen on enforcement — for a U.S. program on this topic emphasising encouragement see https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/.

Is “sharing” at the heart of transformation?  There was an important panel at the beginning of the second day of the full conference.  A number of questions were raised by Richard Padley the moderator.  Fifteen million documents are being uploaded on scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs) and they are growing.  Research Gate is now the best known.  Are they legal — probably not?  Do they add value to the system?  They might well do so.  The panel was headed by Fred Dylla former CEO of the American Institute of Physics and now running a consultative exercise on possible principles in this new area for the STM publishers.  See http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/.  He was judicious.  Other panellists played with radical ideas.  Will SCNs bypass publishers or become publishers?  Should we flip the model and give researchers what they want?  These were two contributions from Charlie Rapple of Kudos.  Watch this space.

The first presentation on mechanisms of communication, on how to minimise friction, has come from John Sack, a founder of HighWire, the previous day.  It was a tour de force available on the company blog.  The friction involved was in the researcher workflow.  He covered manuscript submission, peer review, the form of the article, referencing and linking, and indexing.  A lot of the analysis was of publisher failure but a common recipe for improvement was for publishers to get together on best practice.  In some cases, but not many, such as peer review there is progress in an area where each journal used to have its own practices requiring rewrites each time a paper is submitted.  Professor Dave Nicholas of CIBER Research summarised his EU study on measuring scholarly reputation in the digital age.  This is available at http://ciber-research.eu/download/20160120-reputation_berlin.pdf.  Publications are no longer the only standard for judgement.  He is particularly interested in teaching metrics — an almost invisible area at the moment.  There was a lucid presentation on first year of the German Council for Scientific Infrastructures which advises on digital shift.  Funding tends to be for projects.  It is difficult to get funding for digital plumbing, seemingly a new word for cyberinfrastructure and rather more pleasing.

Many readers will know that funders have a bigger role in Europe than they have in the U.S. particularly where open access is concerned.  Science Europe is the organisation of governmental funders (74 in all) and was represented by their policy director.  They adopted principles on OA publishing services in 2015.  There are a range of documents on this site — http://www.scienceeurope.org/downloads — many of which look interesting.  Perhaps 80% of members have a policy of funding OA mainly green but increasingly (also) gold.  They understand that they need to interact with researchers, which is a pleasant surprise.

Finally there was a big panel on research ethics and publishing.  There was general agreement that most bad behaviour is a matter of sloppiness rather than indicating deliberate fraud.  Some thought they had the answer — for example a spreading of the preprint culture.  Most were not certain how best to act.  Editors are for example under some obligation to defend their authors.  It was a debate held within biomedicine.  A physicist from the floor pointed out that you do not get retractions in his subject.

Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition, “Where Do We Go From Here?” — Charleston Gaillard Center, Francis Marion Hotel, Embassy Suites Historic Downtown, and Courtyard Marriott Historic District — Charleston, SC, November 4-7, 2015

Charleston Conference Reports compiled by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <r-kubilius@northwestern.edu>

Column Editor’s Note:  Thank you to all of the Charleston Conference attendees who agreed to write short reports that highlight sessions they attended at the 2015 Charleston Conference.  All attempts were made to provide a broad coverage of sessions, and notes are included in the reports to reflect known changes in the session titles or presenters, highlighting those that were not printed in the conference’s final program (though some may have been reflected in the online program).  Please visit the Conference Website at www.charlestonlibraryconference.com, and https://2015charlestonconference.sched.org/, for the online conference schedule from which there are links to many presentations’ PowerPoint slides and handouts, plenary session videos, and conference reports by the 2015 Charleston Conference blogger, Don Hawkins.  The conference blog is available at: https://www.charleston-hub.com/category/chsconfblog/.  The 2015 Charleston Conference Proceedings will be published in partnership with Purdue University Press in 2016.

In this issue of ATG you will find the second installment of 2015 conference reports.  The first installment can be found in ATG v.28#1, February 2016.  We will continue to publish all of the reports received in upcoming print issues throughout the year. — RKK


Altmetrics in Practice: How Institutions are Using Altmetric Data to Enhance Administrator, End-User and Staff Assessment Practices  — Presented by Sara Rouhi (Altmetric);  Andrew White (Stony Brook University);  Colleen Willis (National Academy of Science)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <r-kubilius@northwestern.edu>


The session covered a lot of ground.  Rouhi tackled the question, “What are altmetrics?” by covering basics.  They are 1) Indicators that are complementary to traditional metrics;  2) immediacy indicators (for some, the article is not the currency of communication);  3) garners of attention in a multi-faceted picture of engagement.  Altmetrics do NOT indicate how often people are finding your site and what they are doing there, nor do they gauge efficacy.  Ways to track output provide a vehicle with tags attached to output and are in a source that is track.  As an institutional tool, aggregates, visualizes by the deep dive, and uses of the API, provide data that is integrated and visualized.  White described a range of applications and uses of altmetrics:  use for faculty (VIVO) scorecards, tracking media coverage of research contributions, increasing visibility of research collaborators, and use for promotion and tenure.  Additional data from altmetrics that was not anticipated: puts value on “niche” research areas, adds media coverage and global reach.  Advice?  Focus on DOIs, develop an “elevator” altmetrics speech, recognize that disambiguation is still a challenge.  Willis described motivational metrics, using data to communicate impact.  That can include Impact LibGuides, impact summaries (for which she fields many requests), and librarians’ use of the tools to package the information.  Next steps:  more staff training, embedding librarians into communications planning for projects, improving analytics techniques of usage, peer review metrics and analytics.  During discussion with the audience, it was acknowledged that altmetrics, as with other numbers (and statistics), can be gamed, but their potential and actual use is undeniable for communications, collection development, grant compliance, and broad impact statements.  Funders are using altmetrics, too.  Who pays?  It may differ — the communications office at one institution, the vice president for research at another.


Implementing Collection Lifecycle Management — Presented by Annie Bélanger (University of Waterloo Library)

Reported by:  Jennifer Abbott  (National Renewable Energy Laboratory Library)  <Jennifer.Abbott@nrel.gov>


Bélanger urges librarians to think differently about collection development.  All too often we focus on the acquisition of materials and pay very little attention to what happens throughout the lifespan of those items we acquire.  By shifting to a holistic view of collection development or collection management, we can improve our practices by instilling a feeling of empowerment towards our collections.  We can develop a manageable collection by taking a strategic retention focus and only keep those items that are valuable to us instead of all items deemed valuable.

In a session that was standing room only, Bélanger outlined a few guidelines for developing a collection lifecycle management plan.  One involves keeping an open and consistent line of communication with stakeholders and other participants to gain buy-in.  Another involves developing both a collection development policy and an overarching strategy and to be sure to follow them.  Additional guidelines can be found in Annie’s toolkit:  http://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/collectionlifecyclemanagement.

By adapting this approach to collection development, the University of Waterloo Library was able to transform its costly 98 percent capacity collection to a much more manageable 81 percent capacity collection.


Interrogating Demand: Pathways toward purchase in patron influenced E-book models — Presented by Harold Colson (UC San Diego);  Jim Dooley (University of California, Merced);  Kerry Scott (UC Santa Cruz);  Deborah Kegel (UC, San Diego)

Reported by:  Amy Lewontin  (Northeastern University)  <a.lewontin@neu.edu>


One of the interesting moments in a very upbeat session occurred when Dooley, from one of the newer University of California campuses, Merced, discussed the goals for the “shared” collections with which  the UC system was experimenting.  He stressed the idea of improving efficiencies and raised the notion of “what does sharing look like in an eBook world?”  He mentioned taking a philosophical approach to Demand Drive Acquisitions.  The University of California’s first pilot involved 32 institutions and was a split between ebrary and EBSCO, and MyiLibrary for eBooks, shared among all the participating libraries.  Scott, from UC Santa Cruz, discussed the UC pilot between ebrary and Yankee Book Publishing (YBP).

Scott made mention of something that many libraries may be thinking of, but may not have enunciated yet, and that is an: “eBook values statement” which the UC libraries developed for themselves.  Sort of a hopes and dreams and value and what parameters would a library want to see in an eBook license.  Certainly it appeared that the UC system, based on the meeting, was not looking for strong DRM in their eBooks, but this was one of the negatives they found during the pilot.  Other negatives worth noting — ADA issues;  ILL chapter level only; not an unlimited # of users; platform not loved (by librarians);  STL embargoes and STL fee increases.  They were looking to expand the depth and breadth of their collection, and they did appear to find that happening with the pilot approach.  What Scott mentioned that libraries may want to take note of, is that they were able to support university presses through the DDA program, and also to improve access for their users, and this they could see through their usage data.  Kegel spoke about a publisher specific eBook platform, and that was Engnetbase from CRC.  Her feeling was that she would rather see the Library purchase books from publisher sites directly, through an evidenced based model.  It may be time consuming for the Library staff, but it is worth the time, to do the analysis.

Colson discussed the pilot approach for JSTOR eBooks.  As it was put to the members of the audience, “JSTOR drives.”  What was different about the approach was a specific choice not to load MARC records but instead make use of their discovery tool as a database for their records.  JSTOR chapter downloads were amazingly popular and it was interesting to see the titles used, and the reasonable cost for a book purchase.  Many of us need to be thinking about a library eBook value statement, as a possible guiding principle, and the meeting was a good way to understand what should go into the creation of such a document, and why it is important to consider.


Publishing Our Own Work: Contributing to the Professional Literature through Systematizing Sharing of Library Reports — Presented by Lisa Hinchliffe (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign);  Aaron McCollough (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign);  Emily Hardesty (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

NOTE:  Sarah Crissinger also contributed to the presentation via Skype.

Reported by:  Leslie Koller  (SILS Student, University of South Carolina-Columbia)  <lkoller@email.sc.edu>


The presenters discussed the need for the preservation and sharing of library reports within an institution and with other libraries.  McCollough advised on the importance of having different outlets for publishing library reports versus publishing scholarly works through a university press.  Hinchliffe presented information on the Library Occasional Report Series (LiboRS) project that was established at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  LiboRS was created as an opportunity to share materials and secure work that may otherwise be lost.  A grant was received for funding graduate students to aid in the various steps of the project.  The first graduate student who worked on the project, Crissinger, also contributed to the presentation via Skype.  She discussed the early stages of the project and how materials are selected for inclusion to LiboRS.  Hardesty discussed the need for creating a visually appealing template and how the project will be publicized through blogs and social media.  Hinchliffe concluded the session by discussing the future of the project and the anticipation of the university’s first publications.  The session proceeded as advertised, and various stages of the project were outlined for the attendees.


What Do Our Users Think About eBooks? 10 Years of Survey Data at the University of Denver — Presented by Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver)

Reported by:  Crystal Hampson  (University of Saskatchewan)  <crystal.hampson@usask.ca>


The University of Denver is a private institution with a strong graduate program particularly in the social sciences.  It also has undergraduate programs in the liberal arts and sciences, as well as a business program but is not strong in the sciences.  In this context, Levine-Clark conducted a user survey of print and eBook usage in 2005, and a similar survey in 2010 and again in 2015.  Comparing results by discipline, type of user (faculty, graduate or undergraduate student) and over time, Levine-Clark provided very interesting and detailed results covering issues such as: why users use eBooks compared to print, how they use eBooks compared to print, and how long they are willing to wait to get the print version vs. use an eBook version.  Levine-Clark pointed out that, given users preferences (often for print), libraries may be doing users a disservice through their choice of format.


Will it Ever Settle Down? The Impact of the Rapidly Shifting Ebook Business Models on Libraries and Publishers — Presented by David Givens (Loyola University);  Rebecca Seger (Oxford University Press);  Lynn Wiley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign);  Michael Zeoli (YBP Library Services)

Reported by:  Jennifer Culley  (The University of Southern Mississippi)  <Jennifer.culley@usm.edu>


Presented in a panel format to a large crowd, with standing room only, it appeared to be the answer to “Will it ever settle down?” is not right now.  Each presenter spoke about their experiences with eBooks including challenges with acquiring them, using them, maintaining them and purchasing them, eliciting many nods of agreement from the audience.

Currently, there are many ways of acquiring electronic books, such as:  purchasing entire collections, subject specific or archival collections, via a database model, title-by-title, subscriptions or lease, aggregator third party, PDA (Patron Driven Acquisitions) or DDA (Demand Driven Acquisitions), and EBA (Evidence Based Acquisitions).

Some issues concerning eBooks include ownership, what is not included, licensing and procurement, access fees, price hikes, user options, number of simultaneous users, printing and download options, getting use statistics, platform proliferations, readers and vocabulary, discoverability, course adoption and adding e-copies.  All of these issues must be addressed, especially within the landscape of shrinking library budgets.

eBook numbers are growing, as is the use of them.  Publishers are making numerous changes to keep up with the market, shrinking library budgets and demand.  Packages and model options are changing and libraries are forced to adapt.  This looks at the moment to be an ongoing issue, to which all libraries will continue to face in the immediate future.


Life Post-ILS Migration: How Far Have We Come Since Our “Go Live” Dates and Where Do We Go From Here? — Presented by Susan Flanagan (Getty Research Institute);
Moon Kim (California State University, Fullerton);  Ann Kutulas (Tarrant County College)

Reported by:  Gail Julian  (Clemson University)  <djulian@clemson.edu>


Three librarians from institutions in various stages of migration to Ex Libris’ Alma shared their experiences with an engaged audience.  The Getty Research Institute in California migrated from Voyager to Alma and uses Primo as their discovery layer.  Getty was an early adopter of Alma and took a long time to implement.  Tarrant County College in Texas is located on five campuses served by one technical services department.  Tarrant migrated in only four months and experienced a steep learning curve.  California State University, Fullerton is one of 23 campuses that are in the planning stages of a group migration to Alma in 2017.  While cost was an important factor in the selection of Alma, postponing implementation until 2017 will allow for data cleanup and for Alma to mature.  Three of the CSU campuses are currently testing and developing best practices for the group.  The discussion yielded several important takeaways:  a shorter timeframe for implementation may be preferable over a longer one;  Alma is expected to mature over the next year or two if a migration can wait;  Ex Libris provides weekly calls during migration and quick follow-up thereafter addressing concerns about system support;  notes fields may not migrate well;  Alma has strong workflow tools but don’t expect current workflow to transfer to Alma;  some workflow improvements resulted but features in previous systems might not be present in Alma such as the ability to interact with storage without intermediate software such as GFA;  Alma upgrades monthly with fixes to that upgrade coming in the next week or so.  This can cause confusion for staff who may be used to only periodic preplanned upgrades so it’s important to read the release notes;  documentation has been improved;  Alma is much more complex than Voyager which is more compartmentalized;  Alma has no predictive print serials check-in;  Orbis-Cascade is a good model.


Making Institutional Repositories Work: From the Frontlines to the Future — Presented by David Scherer (Carnegie Mellon University);  Barbara Tierney (University of Central Florida Libraries);  Burton Callicott (College of Charleston);  Lee Dotson (University of Central Florida);  Andrew Wesolek (Clemson University)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <r-kubilius@northwestern.edu>


This was a “one big happy family” panel that included editors of the 2015 Charleston Insights publication, Making Institutional Repositories Work, and members of the University of Central Florida Libraries STARS (Showcase of Text, Archives, Research & Scholarship, http://stars.library.ucf.edu) IR team.  Coverage included platforms, policies, content recruitment, success measurement (especially through altmetrics), case studies and closing remarks.  Callicott provided research on IRs for the book.  Wesolek mentioned that data management and sharing mandates from funders and an AAU memo can spur activity.  Scherer encouraged focus on the larger program, not the individual vessel.  See it as a holistic model of services, with the IR being a keystone of the service module.  Tierney and Dotson described their institution’s librarian toolkit for IR marketing.  They do environmental scans of departments.

During Q&A, it became apparent that some institutions have separate IRs (e.g., for special collections, data repository, digital commons), with separate collection development policies and discovery tools to connect (bridge) the IRs.  It seemed common practice that depositors enter basic information and libraries help with metadata.  One couldn’t help but think of the challenges becoming opportunities, as optimistically suggested in the baseball film, “Field of Dreams (“If you build it, they will come”)…


Money, Money, Money…Or Not! — Presented by Deborah Nolan (Towson University);  Mary Gilbert (Townson University)

Reported by:  Ashley L. Ware  (SLIS Student, University of South Carolina)  <alware@email.sc.edu>


This session discussed how to deal with budgets deficits, how to plan for funding, and where to find information.  Gilbert and Nolan wanted to lay everything out on the table to explain the realities that libraries face with fiscal years showing a deficit and how to overcome the challenges of finding money.  The first step into “budget reality” was showing explicit detail of collection funds, such as where the funds are allocated, how many fines and fees are collected, and any endowment income.  Emphasize access and support from the budget.  It turns out that Townson University had a very large shortfall in funds.  Gilbert and Nolan created a system of understanding the budget to be able to overcome these shortfalls.  First, detail cost examples of staff, faculty, and show all resources.  Decipher the cost change for every avenue; vendor price vs. negotiation price.  Next, understand where program collections can be lost in the system.  Decide if other programs are growing exponentially and the expense it might cost the library.  Organize journals and databases down to the cost per use.  Be merciless when it comes to expensive databases with a cost per use at $29.00 or similar.  Check into new models that acquire access like PDA, DDA, and UDA.  Prepare guidelines to cancelling and adding journals and databases.  If one is cancelled is there another that could replace it at a cheaper price?  Have open communication between programs.  There are possibly funds available in different departments that could be allocated to the library for supplies and materials.  Townson is part of a consortium and work closely with the other sixteen libraries to supply materials and online resources.  Relying on interlibrary loans and sharing collection development can help lower funds.  Gilbert and Nolan expressed open communication between everyone within the library, consortium, and collection developments.  Be exacting with funds and speak openly to fully understand where the money is being spent.  It will help in the long term to lower budget shortfalls, while still bringing in a well-developed collection.


On the Premises and Beyond! Managing Copyright Policy in the Library through Institutional and Technological Change — Presented by Brandy Karl (Pennsylvania State University)

Reported by:  Lisa Hopkins  (Texas A&M University-Central Texas)  <l.hopkins@tamuct.edu>


This clear, well-spoken, and engaging speaker (a copyright officer) focused on ways libraries can inform themselves about and protect themselves from copyright infringement.  The emphasis of this presentation was protecting the library and library staff from liability, not necessarily educating patrons, students, or faculty about copyright laws.  She stressed the absolute necessity for libraries to have a copyright policy and spend time and energy enforcing that policy.  There needs to be comprehensive placement of notices on all technology that can reproduce equipment, and annual audits to ensure legibility and clarity of those notices.  Library staff must never ask what the faculty or students intend to do with the book or article — adopt a “Don’t ask” policy for protection.  Karl also spoke about the special immunity that libraries have, in particular as it involves activities such as lending and interlibrary loan; at the same time, universities are seen as “deep pockets,” so to protect ourselves from potential lawsuits, libraries must place notices on absolutely everything.  Karl spent a little time outlining Fair Use and how it plays out in the university library, but gave links and resources for further reading.  She quickly went over risk versus reward, and stressed doing a risk assessment for your library.


Try, Try, Again: Better Faculty Outreach through Trial and Error — Presented by Sarah Schulman (Springer);  Patti McCall (University of Central Florida);  Michael Arthur (University of Alabama)

Reported by:  Alison M. Armstrong  (Radford University)  <amarmstro@radford.edu>


When we think about connecting with faculty, we see the liaisons in a role between faculty and vendors.  Arthur, currently the Head of Resource Acquisition and Discovery at the University of Alabama and (formerly at the University of Central Florida) and McCall, the Physical & Life Sciences Librarian at UCF teamed up with Schulman, an Account Development Specialist with Springer, to discuss ways in which librarians and vendor representatives can work together to reach out to faculty.  Arthur and McCall were panelists and Schulman played the role of moderator and panelist.

An audience member said they were successful with meeting faculty for drinks.  McCall agreed.  Someone else in the audience suggested wine and cheese events with faculty.  ROI is a major focus as is more collaboration, particularly across departments.  One idea is setting material funds aside for new faculty in addition to their usual departmental funds.

It was interesting to hear about collaborations between librarians and vendors reaching out to faculty and students, however, the sales pitch information detracted from what I think we could have learned in this session.


Innovations in Open Access Monographs, Archives and Journals — Presented by Rick Anderson (University of Utah);  Brian Hole (Ubiquity Press);  David Parker (Alexander Street);  Alison Mudditt (University of California Press);  Jack Montgomery (Facilitator, Western Kentucky University)

Reported by:  Crystal Hampson  (University of Saskatchewan)  <crystal.hampson@usask.ca>


Mudditt opened this inspiring session on alternative models of OA publishing by describing the context for monographs publishing where the transition to open access is happening at the same time as the transition to digital Open access fits UC Press’ mission to democratize content and disseminate scholarship.  However, OA models for STM journals (disciplines with large research grants) do not fit the humanities reality.  Mudditt described UC Press’ Luminos model for OA book publishing.  Contributions are made from the author’s institution, a subsidy from its library, a subsidy from UC Press and revenue from print sales.  Authors want to be read, not just published.  UC Press hopes to demonstrate that OA can be better than traditional monographs.  Hole described the Open Library of Humanities platform, a very cost efficient platform supported as a charitable organization, publishing without article processing charges for authors.  OLH hopes to create a global community of humanities publishing.  Publishing can be cheaper.  Parker described archival OA publishing using two models: government or institution funded, and the sales threshold model which has delayed OA.  An example is Anthropology Commons, which has delayed OA, 10% of sales contributed to sponsor future OA publishing, and underwriting by some contributors.


Shared Print in the Orbis Cascade Alliance and Colorado Alliance — Presented by Charles Watkinson (Facilitator, University of Michigan);  Xan Arch (Reed College);  James Bunnelle (Lewis & Clark College);  Jill Emery (Portland State University);  Yem Fong (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries);  Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver);  George Machovec (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries)

Report by:  Alison M. Armstrong  (Radford University)  <amarmstro@radford.edu>


The Orbis Cascade Alliance presenters were Arch, Bunnelle, and Emery.  Their top priorities are cooperative collection development, pooling resources, and space reclamation.  There was a collective purchase of 1,000 volumes of 19th Century British Parliamentary Papers they wanted to weed.  Several lessons were learned:  print documentation is never complete and always have an exit strategy.  They made a joint purchase of the e-version.  The next step is to decide who, if any of them, will keep the print.

The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries presenters were Fong, Levine-Clark, and Machovec.  The impetus for their shared print program was based on space, a strong ILL system, eBooks, and storage facilities.  They have designated copies to hold and others to weed to protect last copies.  Their comparison tool, Gold Rush, can use real time data to compare library to library or system to system.  It can also be used for new programs for list checking and gap filling and to support requests for additional funds.

PASCAL, is high-density offsite storage.  The materials that are there are there to stay and have been identified as last copies.

The session was informative, engaging, and well attended.


Text & Data Mining Contracts – The Issues & The Needs — Presented by: Meg White (Facilitator, Rittenhouse Book Distributors);  Nancy Herther (Moderator, University of Minnesota);  Alicia Wise (Elsevier);  Daniel Dollar (Yale University Library);  Darby Orcutt (North Carolina State University Libraries)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <r-kubilius@northwestern.edu>


Reference was made to an Elsevier video, “What is Text Mining?,” (bit.ly/1R18C1U), and the LIBER text and mining Website (http://libereurope.eu/text-data-mining/)Dollar jump-started the presentation with a reminder that the purpose of scholarship is to understand a large corpus of information and that challenges include legal (licensing), pricing, and access issues.  The inability to mine is a type of embargo (restriction) on using content.  Library support is needed especially for the humanities (more than STM).  Digital Humanities Centers can bridge gaps on making raw data interoperable for humanists.  Per Wise, libraries and publishers work together to support researchers.  She highlighted Elsevier’s aims to provide services beyond content (e.g., its SDM development portal) and a timeline in this arena since 2006.  Researcher challenges abound in differing support requirements by discipline and expertise (early adopters needed to write their own code), legal (e.g., user privacy), and financial.  Orcutt mentioned his institution’s mining colloquium and mentioned vendor and library push me/pull me challenges and misunderstandings on capacities, siloed content, librarians’ expectations (a lot at no additional cost) vs vendors’ thinking (that everyone needs customized service).  “Mining” implies new support and new roles.  The first step is to advocate for basic access (BAM- the Basic Access Model).  Questions to panelists abounded and responses highlighted the spectrum of users and their needs:  those who just need the data, those with an interest in getting into mining, and those who need hand holding.  One (idealistic?) hope expressed:  vendors should consider price at scale with support for users at all levels (i.e., high-end researchers don’t need dumbed down systems for mining).


That’s all the reports we have room for in this issue.  Watch for more reports from the 2015 Charleston Conference in upcoming issues of Against the Grain.  Presentation material (PowerPoint slides, handouts) and taped session links from many of the 2015 sessions are available online.  Visit the Conference Website at www.charlestonlibraryconference.com. — KS



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Share This