Waking from the Dream

A blog called “In the Open,” dedicated to issues for scholarship and libraries, is a logical place to engage in the ongoing and vital discussions about diversity and inclusion in our libraries and on our campuses.  Following the lead of April Hathcock’s post from last month, I offer this reflection to continue the conversation:

Many years ago, soon after we were married, my wife and I spent a year as house parents for a group of academically-talented teenage boys from disadvantaged backgrounds who, were they not part of the program that put them in better schools, would have had little chance of getting into college.  The house was, to say the least, ethnically and racially diverse.  One afternoon, one of our seniors came home upset and with his knuckles bleeding.  Corry, as I will call him, had been in a fight because another boy in the school had called him the N-word.  The details of the fight, as well as his distress at the result, convinced me that Corry had behaved as well as could be expected in the circumstances, but there were complex consequences.  For me, the most profound part of the whole episode was when I sat listening to a conversation between Corry and his father.  His father asked Corry if he understood why being called that word had upset him so, since it was common enough in music and on the basketball court.  When Corry admitted that he did not, his father explained the context and history of that epithet in his own life, which I think opened Corry’s eyes.  I know that it opened mine. Read more

On Trying Not to Worry About Piracy

A few weeks ago, it felt like the threats to the work we do at the University of North Carolina Press were coming from all directions.

At a regional SSP panel discussion, a key local collection development librarian in the audience told the university press panelists that declining purchases of our monographs was not primarily due to a lack of financial resources in libraries. Instead, he argued, their analytics indicated our books were not being used enough to justify their acquisition. Read more

Beware the Trojan Horse: Elsevier’s repository pilot and our vision for IRs & Open Access

By IO blogger Ellen Finnie with Guest co-author Greg Eow, AD for Collections, MIT Libraries

As charged discussion around Elsevier’s purchase of SSRN continued in the past week, Elsevier and the University of Florida (UF) announced a pilot that links UF’s institutional repository with Elsevier’s platform. By employing an automatic deposit of metadata about Elsevier-published UF articles into UF’s repository, with pointers to Elsevier’s site for access to the articles themselves, users of the UF institutional repository will be able to discover and, if they have authorized access, access final copies of Elsevier journals. Read more

For the 1,000th Time: Who Will Own (and Mine) the Scholarly Record?

Elsevier is a massive, for-profit publisher headquartered in Amsterdam. They make a lot of money aggregating faculty work product for cheap and selling it back to universities at a huge markup. Their mission is to maximize shareholder value and profit.

Elsevier just bought SSRN, a widely used repository of social science research articles, especially preprints. A lot of smart people, including Kevin Smith on this blog, have weighed in on this development. SSRN users aware of Elsevier’s profits-first practices are nervous. The excellent Authors Alliance has put together a list of principles they believe SSRN must adhere to in order to maintain the trust of the authors who post work there. One of our favorite takes, Christopher Kelty’s blog post here, explains why Elsevier probably bought SSRN, and why we should be nervous. The acquisition is probably not so much about the individual papers as it is about possession of a trove of research for data mining about scholarship. Possession may be 9/10ths of the law, but it’s 10/10ths of data mining. If you don’t have the data, you can’t do the mining. Now Elsevier’s got the data, and the academy will get to use it only on Elsevier’s terms. Read more

Tightening their grip

In the last couple of weeks, there have been several developments in the scholarly communication world that all point in the same direction – the move by the major commercial publishers to tighten their grip on access to and share of academic work, as well as a concern to capture data about how scholarship is shared.  Call this last part the commodification of the professoriate.

My attention was first drawn to these developments by a tweet that pointed to Wiley’s “Article Sharing Policy” site — with its handy-dandy sharing guidelines chart — and asked if Wiley really was asserting control over the pre-peer review copy of scholarly manuscripts.  Before I proceed, I think it is important to explain why the answer to that question is yes. Read more

The People’s Content: Diversifying What is Open and How We are Open

Pointing an OA lens on cultural heritage objects

Last fall at the Penn State University Libraries, one of the ways that we observed Open Access (OA) Week was to dedicate half a day to a series of presentations and discussions about the topic. Organized by the Libraries Open Educational Resources (OER) Task Force, the event was conducted also for internal outreach purposes, particularly since the previous semester the Library Faculty Organization, our governance body, passed an OA Policy. The talks included a “Scholarly Communications 101” presentation; a progress report by the chair of our Open Access Monographs Team; tips on how to be an OA ambassador; priorities for implementing the OA Policy; and a “technical update/year in review” that addressed federal funding agency requirements since the responses to the OSTP mandate began pouring in. It was a compilation of informative talks, put together by colleagues who have become, over the years, increasingly adept at addressing OA and schol comm issues. Read more

Compliance Considerations as Institutional Open Access Policies Grow

At my home institution, the University of Arizona, the Faculty Senate recently passed an Open Access policy that follows the standard model of directing faculty authors to deposit the final accepted manuscripts of their articles into our institutional repository. As an Arizona alum and OA advocate, I’m doubly pleased that that the Faculty Senate embraced the principle of making the university’s scholarship more widely accessible. Having gone down this path twice, once at Oregon State University and now at Arizona, I’ve been thinking about faculty motivations and how they relate to OA policy compliance. Read more

On copyright, translations and moral rights

In a recent discussion about Sci-Hub, I took some heat for bringing up the history of copyright and the shifting attitudes over time about what it is good for.  So I should probably know better than to appeal to history again as I begin some thoughts about the unique place of translations in copyright law.  Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that translations were not explicitly protected by U.S. law until 1870, and that 17 years earlier, an author of no less stature than Harriett Beecher Stowe lost a lawsuit in which she tried to prevent the publication of an unauthorized translation into German of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  As this article about the case tells us, the judge asserted that once it was published, Stowe’s expression was as available to translators — as much “public property” — as were the works of Homer or Cervantes. Read more

Clarity for our users

One of my favorite articles in the library literature is Melanie Schlosser’s “Unless Otherwise Indicated: A Survey of Copyright Statements on Digital Library Collections” in the July 2009 College & Research Libraries. Schlosser looked at the copyright statements for digital collections of members of the Digital Library Federation and did an analysis of their content. She identified several trends in these such as “The Vague Ownership Statement” and “Protecting Ourselves and You”, and, in general, found that these statements provided mixed messages about terms of use and copyright, and incomplete information about the actual copyright status of the items themselves. The examples she provides throughout the text give one a great sense of those mixed messages, incomplete information, and general CYA language that many libraries have used. Read more

Partnerships for Openness Built on a Shared Foundation

Love on a Book by Sebastien Wiertz licensed under CC-BY 2.0

This week I had the opportunity to speak at the University System of Georgia’s Teaching and Learning Conference.  We had a great discussion about the role of libraries supporting open educational resources (OERs) as part of a daylong track sponsored by Affordable Learning Georgia, a program that connects faculty, librarians, the press, and external partners to support course redesign and open education.  ALG is a relatively new project but has already shown outstanding results, saving students more than $16 million in its first two years.  In light of these results, it’s no surprise that the university system gave ALG such a prominent role in the event.  In fact, an OER track has become increasingly common in many academic conferences, including special emphasis at this month’s CNI Executive Roundtable, a daylong event at ALA Midwinter, and sessions at most of the major library-focused conferences in 2015 and 16. Read more

Good News in two important fair use cases

There have been developments, of the sort that don’t make headlines, in two major copyright cases that folks in higher education need to know about.

First, today the Supreme Court announced that it would not review the opinion issued by the Second Circuit in the Authors Guild v. Google, the case about the Google Books project that offered a strong reaffirmation of fair use.  So the Authors Guild finally and definitively loses another in its string of anti-fair use cases.  This was what I and many others expected, but it is nice to be able to say that this case is done.  And the broad, flexible approach to fair use that is outlined in the Second Circuit’s decision stands, which is great news. Read more

Using library content licenses to shape the scholarly communications landscape

As announced Friday, the MIT Libraries have included innovative language in our agreement with Springer : a provision that MIT-authored articles will automatically be deposited into our campus repository.

This partnership reflects the strategy mentioned in my previous post – our newly created Department of Scholarly Communications and Collections Strategy is assessing potential purchases using a new lens: whether purchases transform the scholarly communication system towards openness, or make a positive impact on the scholarly communication environment in some way—to take one example, through licensing. Read more

Fair Use is the Lifeblood of Academia

If the library is the heart of a university, then exercising fair use is the lifeblood.  Teachers, researchers, students, librarians and publishers exercise fair use in countless ways every day.  It is fair use that facilitates re-using and re-mixing, if you will, the knowledge preserved and made available by libraries into new discoveries and interpretations.  This process of research and scholarship has been referred to as ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ because we all rely on that which has gone before to provide insight, context and meaning for today. Read more

Unizin’s content strategy, the meaning of open and musings on textbook licensing

Interesting things are happening over at the Unizin project. In early February the Unizin board shared some of its thinking about course content in a post, An Evolutionary Unizin Approach for Commercial and OER Content. Outside of project teams & meetings directly related to Unizin activity (disclosure and disclaimer: my institution is a Unizin member, so although I’m partly drawing on some of our experiences, this post only reflects my personal views) I’ve not heard a lot of chatter about the strategy or Unizin in general, so I don’t know how many eyeballs it’s attracted. It may be that, on balance, not a huge number of us know what Unizin is, but assuming the strategy was posted to stimulate response and conversation, here are a few thoughts. Read more

Here we go again — new GSU decision an odd victory for libraries

[Note that this posting is also found on the Scholarly Communications @ Duke site.  I decided to post it on both the venue I am leaving and this new, group undertaking, because the issue is so important.  But I apologize for the repetition  that many readers of both sites will experience]

My first thought when I read the new ruling in the Georgia State copyright lawsuit brought by publishers over e-reserves was of one of those informal rules that all law students learn — don’t tick off your judge.  From the first days of the original trial, the arrogant antics of the attorneys representing the publisher plaintiffs — Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Sage Publishing — clearly put them in a bad light in the Judge Evans’ eyes. Those chickens came home to roost in this latest opinion, especially where the plaintiffs are chided for having filed a declaration about what licenses were available for excerpts back in 2009, even after the Judge told them not to, since that information had not been introduced as evidence in the original trial.  All of that evidence was stricken, and the Judge based her new opinion on the evidence that was before her in that first trial.  I can imagine that the publishers might use that ruling as a basis for yet another appeal, but if they do so, they had better be able to prove that the evidence is genuine and reliable, and to explain why, if it is, they did not produce it at trial back in 2011. Read more

The Cost to Publish a Monograph is Both Too Low and Too High

Last Fall, consultants from Ithaka S&R visited the University of North Carolina Press to gather data they would use in writing a report on the costs of publishing a scholarly monograph. At the time, I couldn’t help but wonder whether the Press staff felt like they were being interviewed by the Bobs from “Office Space.” We were being asked how much time we spend on individual projects? How do we allocate our days? What work do we perform in-house versus outsourcing? And we were being told we would be given tools to measure our productivity and costs against our peers. Read more

What organic food shopping can tell us about transforming the scholarly communications system

In the MIT Libraries we’ve just launched a new and innovative approach for our scholarly communications program — and for our collections budget: the collections budget is now part of the scholarly communications program.

Yes, you read that right: through the vision and leadership of new Associate Director for Collections Greg Eow and Director Chris Bourg, the collections budget has been incorporated into, essentially under, the scholarly communications program. Not the other way around. Read more

What “In the Open” is all about

The title of this new blog should not surprise folks.  It is born out of the conviction that scholarship should be open because…

Scholarship in the open is better business – it provides a clearer perspective on what it actually costs to produce articles, books and other scholarly output.

Scholarship in the open is better for libraries – it connects us more directly with our researchers and with the life entire life cycle of research. It improves our ability to disseminate the outcomes of research and get the materials they need into the hands of students, teachers and others quickly and efficiently. Read more