Academic libraries, open access, institutional repositories, and the public good
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•476 views
Presented at the Kansas Library Association on October 21, 2016 in Wichita, KS
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Academic libraries, open access, institutional repositories, and the public good
Similar to Academic libraries, open access, institutional repositories, and the public good (20)
More from Sarah Sutton
More from Sarah Sutton (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Academic libraries, open access, institutional repositories, and the public good
- 1. Academic Libraries, Open Access, Institutional Repositories, and the Public Good Sarah W. Sutton (@sarahwws) Kansas Library Association Annual Conference Wichita, KS October 21, 2016
- 2. Scholarly communication • Information communication technology • Traditional products in traditional venues: e-journals • Non-traditional venues: social media • Non-traditional products: grant reports, data sets • New measures of research impact
- 3. Where we’re going today • Sharing what I’ve learned • Open access • Institutional repositories • Academic libraries • Public Good • Synthesis • Fractured efforts • Lessons learned • The way forward • Evangelizing
- 4. The public good • Not new to libraries • Cataloging • At the heart of open access • Increasing emphasis on accountability • “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good” (BOAI, 2002) • “The tradition of scholars to share results of their work freely and without expectation of payment with the full expectation that their peers would not only read their work but build on their results in order to advance scholarship” (Joseph, 2016)
- 5. Open access: A brief history • Born of advances in communication technologies “The premise that the web was built for and built on is the idea of open” (Joseph, 2016) access to information. • Not just for librarians • Well funded • My influences: Peter Suber & Steve Harnad
- 6. Open access initiatives • Budapest Open Access Initiative - BOAI (2002) • making the literature that “scholars give to the world without expectation of payment…primarily peer-reviewed journal articles” freely accessible online in order to “accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge” (BOAI, 2002) • Bethesda Statement (2003) • “stimulate the discussion within the biomedical research community on how to proceed, as rapidly as possible, to the widely held goal of providing open access to the primary scientific literature” (Bethesda Statement, 2003). It included statements from three working groups: scientists and scientific societies, libraries and publishers, and institutions and funding agencies about “significant, concrete steps that all related parties…can take to promote the rapid and efficient transition to open access publishing” (Bethesda Statement, 2003).
- 7. Open access initiatives • Berlin Declaration (2003) • “with the aim of developing a new web-based research environment using the Open Access paradigm as a mechanism for having scientific knowledge and cultural heritage accessible worldwide” (Berlin Declaration on open access, 2003a). "An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good” (BOAI, 2002).
- 8. SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) • Association of Research Libraries, 2002 • “A global coalition committed to making open the default for research and education” (SPARC, 2016) • Stakeholders collaborate to encourage new norms “If we could reinvent the system of sharing scholarship and research in a way that’s optimized for the academy, what would that look like and how would we get there?” (Joseph, 2016)
- 9. Two “flavors” of open access • Gold OA • Green OA
- 10. Institutional repositories Build “capacity for preserving, managing, and providing access to unique digital collections of enduring value” (TDL, 2016a) “Our empowering technology infrastructure, services, and community programs: • Support research, teaching, and digital curation efforts at our member institutions • Facilitate collaboration amongst our community and with external partners • Connect local work to a global ecosystem of digital library efforts” (TDL, 2016b).
- 11. Institutional repositories: challenges • Marketing • Policy development • Theses and dissertations • Scholar buy-in Tenure & promotion
- 12. Two visions of institutional repositories Both • Early days of IRs • Advancing open access 1. Innovation and new forms of information (Lynch) 2. Disaggregating scholarly publishing in order to expand access (SPARC’s early days)
- 13. Innovation and new forms of information (Lynch) “Three elements for institutional repositories: • to manage, provide access to, and to preserve new forms of scholarship • to nurture innovation in forms of scholarly communication, and • to facilitate the preservation and reuse of the evidence underlying scholarly work” (Plutchak, 2016)
- 14. Disaggregating scholarly publishing in order to expand access (SPARC’s early days) “Two strategic issues for institutional repositories: • IRs could be sued to inform scholarly communication by developing an alternative, disaggregated model for scholarly publishing that would expand access through open access models… • IRs as a mechanism for demonstrating the significance of an institution’s research activity” (Plutchak, 2016)
- 15. Current challenges for IRs • Impact on commercial publishing • Too many copies • Faculty/scholar buy-in However, the real success that IRs have achieved is in sharing “material that is outside the formal publishing program” because “when we provide access to data that we start to really advance science” (Plutchak, 2016)
- 16. Fractured efforts and lessons learned • "20th century policies and practices governing 21st century information" need a radical reset, how can we fully take advantage of networked digital technologies? • If we could reinvent the system of screen sharing scholarship and research in a way that’s optimized for the academy what would that look like and how would we get there? • "An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good” (BOAI, 2002).
- 17. Fractured efforts and lessons learned • SPARC’s strategic review • Problems and solutions • Parallel movements without much collaboration • How to pull these fractured efforts together? • Green OA? • Gold OA? (Joseph, 2016)
- 18. Fractured efforts and lessons learned What do we know now that we didn’t know ten years ago? How can we apply them to current problems? • Look at the whole picture • Clearly define the end goal • Different approaches to the question of why open • Reward open in meaningful ways
- 19. REWARD OPEN IN MEANINGFUL WAYS
- 20. No, really…
- 21. Lessons learned: What you can do • Focus on solving specific problems (Joseph, 2016) • Reward open in meaningful ways (SPARC, 2016) • Use research information systems rather than IRs to highlight the institution’s research output (Plutchak, 2016) • Reduce duplication of OA versions by including in an IR only versions that are not available in OA anywhere else (Plutchak, 2016) • Focus on ingesting, curating, and preserving materials in your IR that compliment formal publications (i.e. data) (Plutchak, 2016)
- 22. Academic Libraries, Open Access, Institutional Repositories, and the Public Good Sarah W. Sutton (@sarahwws) ssutton3@emporia.edu
- 23. References • Berlin9.org. (2003, February 22). Berlin declaraion on open access. Retrieved from http://www.berlin9.org/about/declaration/ • Bethesda statement on open access publication. (2003, April 11). Retrieved from http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm • Budapest open access initiative. (2002, February 14). Budapest open access initiative. Retrieved from http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read • Cancer Moonshot 2020. (2016, July 22). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Moonshot_2020&oldid=731 027185 • Joseph, H. (2016, June). The power of open. Keynote address presented at the NASIG Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM. • Lynch, C. (2003). Lynch 2003.pdf (No. 226). Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/arl-br-226.pdf
- 24. References • Max Planck Society. (2003, February 22). Berlin declaraion on open access. Retrieved from https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration • Plutchak, T. S. (2016, June). Dialectic on the aims of institutional repositories. Keynote address presented at the NASIG Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM. • Poynder, R. (2016, September 22). Q&A with CNI’s Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional repository? Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Clifford_Lynch.pdf • SPARC. (2016). 2016 SPARC Program Plan. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://sparcopen.org/who-we-are/program-plan/ • Suber, P. (n.d.). Open Access. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf • Texas Digital Library. (2016a). Members. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from https://www.tdl.org/members/ • Texas Digital Library. (2016b). Our mission. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from https://www.tdl.org/members/
Editor's Notes
- Hi everyone I’m flattered that there’s so many of you here are staying on the last morning of the conference thank you for that. My name is Sarah Sutton and I’m on the faculty of the school a library and information management at Emporia State University. One of my research interests is scholarly communication, not only the communication itself but how we measure the impact of scholarly work. What I’m going to talk about this morning is the intersection, At least in my thinking, of the open access movement, Institutional repositories, and the notion of libraries providing a public good, specifically academic libraries. I’ve been interested in most of these ideas throughout my professional life both while I was a practicing academic library and as a librarian educator. It’s probably best that I start with the disclaimer. Most of the ideas that I want to share today are not my own but rather they are ideas that I’ve been exposed to recently at conferences dedicated to these specific types of things; scholarly communication in particular. My purpose today is really to share some of these ideas with this audience because it occurs to me that not everyone in this room may have had the opportunity to attend these specialized conferences.
- Just to give some context to what I want to say this morning, let’s talk just briefly about scholarly communication. In the last 20 years in scholarly communication, as a result of advances in information communication technology, we’ve seen the explosion of E journals which have made it much easier and faster for scholars not only to find but to access reports of research that are being done in their field. But beyond traditional scholarly communication we’ve also seen an explosion in new forms of scholarly communication. As the cost of electronic storage has decreased significantly in recent years, scholars are sharing not only of research results in the form of peer reviewed articles but also sharing of other products of research like reports to grant funding agencies, data sets, and so on. And not only that, the dissemination of these new forms of scholarly communication have also given rise to new venues where scholarly communication is taking place, specifically via social media, and that in turn is resulting in new ways measuring this new scholarly output, that is the impact of research.
- So what I’d like to share with you today is some of what I’ve been hearing about academic libraries, open access, institutional repositories, and this idea of libraries as a public good. I’m going to begin by talking briefly about each of these things separately and then come back and wrap them all together the end. My hope is that you’ll come away from the session with a more informed perspective from which to consider your libraries and your institutions contributions to the public good through the provision of open access institutional repository services. I want to get you thinking about them and talking about these things as they might apply to your institution. And what it is that you can do in your institutions to advance the public good. That is to evangelize about that.
- The idea of libraries as a public good has been around for awhile, I’ve always been aware of it, especially as it related to public libraries and the provision of literacy, equity of access, and democracy. I’ve taken for granted that librarians share set of values, but I never really took them out and examined them critically. But it really only began to capture my attention lately, since it became the basis of one of my Ph.D. student’s research. Her research centers on the public good that library catalogs provide, especially in the context of linked open data and semantic web and making the contents of library catalogs open available to more than just the people who sought them out. At about the same time, I began to hear the term in conjunction with scholarly communication and open access. In fact, as you see, I’ve included a Couple of quotes here from sources whose topic was open access. I also that the increasing emphasis on accountability put the idea of the public good at center stage since, in a broad sense, that's what libraries I'll be held accountable for.
- The idea of open access was born of advances in communication technologies. In fact the premise that the web was built for and build on is the idea of open access to information. Now those of you who already have a bit of knowledge about open access know this is such a large topic that could easily take up an entire conference sessions or more. So what I’m going to give you is a very brief history at the open access movement. It started in the late 1990s and early 2000 and was spurred by the advances in communication technology that made it cheap and easy to publish things online. The idea of being able to easily publish scholarly work online and thereby distribute them to other scholars around the world was obviously very enticing. In particular there was a growing idea that making the results of scholarly research more quickly and easily available, meant that other scholars could more quickly and easily build on existing scholarly work. The challenge was that most scholarly work was being published in subscription-based journals. So even though it was available electronically, it was still contained behind a pay wall. Groups are pretty smart people from the world of libraries, scholarly communication, research science, and publishing got together and said wouldn’t it be great if all of this scholarship wasn’t contained behind a pay wall but rather was freely and openly available on the web. Because it had captured the attention of all of these groups of people, open access been fairly well funded from its inception. I was pretty lucky in that I was attendinglLibrary school earning my masters degree in the late 1990s and early 2000 when the open access movement really began to get off the ground. As so as a student, open access had captured my attention. In particular, I read a great deal of what Peter Suber and Steve Harnad wrote about it. Both of them still maintain strong web presences so that if you are interested in digging deeper into open access those would be good places to start.
- So, as I mentioned, groups of really smart people around the world started get together to talk about open access. And many these group’s meetings resulted in public statements supporting open access. I want to time to tell you about just three three of them. BOAI Published in 2002, the document was developed at a meeting of the leading proponents of OA at the time, (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) with a purpose to support making the literature that “scholars give to the world without expectation of payment…primarily peer-reviewed journal articles” freely accessible online in order to “accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and question for knowledge” (BOAI, 2002) The Bethesda Statement published in 2003 as a result of a meeting mainly of scientists and researchers (although some of those who signed the BOAI were also part of it) in order to “stimulate the discussion within the biomedical research community on how to proceed, as rapidly as possible, to the widely held goal of providing open access to the primary scientific literature” (Bethesda Statement, 2003). It included statements from three working groups: scientists and scientific societies, libraries and publishers, and institutions and funding agencies about “significant, concrete steps that all related parties…can take to promote the rapid and efficient transition to open access publishing” (Bethesda Statement, 2003). Berlin Declaration also written and published in 2003 at a meeting organized by the Max Planck Society and the European Cultural Heritage online project “with the aim of developing a new web-based research environment using the Open Access paradigm as a mechanism for having scientific knowledge and cultural heritage accessible worldwide” (Berlin Declaration on open access, 2003a). research institutions, libraries, archives, museums, funding agencies, and governments from around the world
- The Berlin Declaration also written and published in 2003 at a meeting organized by the Max Planck Society and the European Cultural Heritage online project “with the aim of developing a new web-based research environment using the Open Access paradigm as a mechanism for having scientific knowledge and cultural heritage accessible worldwide” (Berlin Declaration on open access, 2003a). Now one of the things that these and the other open access initiatives have in common is that their membership is broad and encompasses librarians, scientists, universities, publishers, and governments. Another is that, as you see from the excerpts of their statements, they are all focused on the public good. This is also true of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, or SPARC for short.
- I learned about open access by reading the work of people like Peter Suber and Steve Harnad. Peter Suber in particular because he was one of the early Open access evangelists. And it was from Peter Suber that I learned about the two flavors of open access scholarly publishing, Green open access and gold open access. Green OA and Gold OA are also often referred to as the “roads to open access.” The difference has to do with how and where access to a scholarly article or other output is provided. Gold open access is delivered to readers by journal and very often includes or requires a payment by the author of an article to the journal in which the article is being published in order to offset the profit but the publisher is losing by not requiring readers of that article to pay a subscription fee in order access it. Green open access on the other hand is delivered through a open access repository, Very often repositories created and maintained by academic institutions. So green open access does require direct payment but still has cost associated with it that is the cost of creating and maintaining a repository.
- So lets shift over to talking about institutional repositories. I was lucky enough to begin my professional practice of librarianship at an academic library in a position that allowed me to exercise my interest in open access by helping to develop that institutions institutional repository. This was in Texas in the institution that I worked for joined the Texas digital library, or TDL for short. TDL is a consortium “founded in 2005 by four Texas members of the Association of Research Libraries” (TDL, 2016A) in order to “[build] capacity for preserving, managing, and providing access to unique digital collections of enduring value. Their mission and goals statement is a good example of the purpose and goals of many IRS.
- Participating in the development of the institutional repository for my institution as part of the Texas digital library and working with librarians from other TDL institutions and with the staff of TDL gave me first hand experience not only in the benefits, that is the public good, they they provide, but also the challenges the in institutional repositories around the country certainly perhaps around the world were experiencing Included things like marketing our institutional repository, working out policies and procedures for ingesting theses and dissertations produced by our students into the repository, and capturing enough of the attention of the scholars and researchers at our institution enough that they would engage in the activity of depositing copies of their journal articles in our repository. That last challenge was probably the biggest one that we face at my institution. During my stay there we never really succeeded in achieving buy-in for our faculty, we never found the trick to convincing faculty to go to the trouble and the effort to deposit their work in our repository. One of the barriers to this of course was that while faculty had a great incentive to publish in well recognized scientific journals, those same well-recognized scientific journals regularly required faculty to sign publication agreements that transferred all of their copyrights to the publisher. This meant they have signed away their copyrights including the right to share their article in any other venue such as an institutional repository. Most of you will recognize that the incentive to publish in well-recognized scientific journals stems directly from promotion and tenure requirements. And as I’ve mentioned this was a barrier that we never fully overcame despite widespread faculty support for open app access in the abstract. In other words our faculty supported the idea of open access, and certainly were very happy to take advantage of open access articles for their own research, But when it came to choosing between supporting the ideal of open access and taking steps to achieve promotion and tenure even though those steps were in opposition to the ideal of open access, Faculty naturally and quite rightly chose to take steps to achieve promotion and tenure.
- Which brings me to one of those brilliant ideas that’s absolutely not mine. It’s one that I think has found has recently found a foothold at least in Open access and institutional repository circles. And it’s one that I’ve heard about most eloquently from T Scott Plutchak. The idea is but if we looked back over the 15 years or so during which institutional repositories have flourished, we see expressed two visions of institutional repositories. Plutchak credits one to Clifford Lynch expressed in a 2003 paper, and one interestingly enough, that is credited to SPARC from 2003.
- Clifford lynches vision of institutional repository is based on technological innovation and the resulting new forms of information that allows scholars and researchers to create. From this he envisions three elements or responsibilities for institutional repositories. First to manage, provide access to, and preserve new forms of scholarship. Second to nurture innovations in forms of scholarly communication. And third to facilitate the preservation and reuse of the evidence underlying scholarly work.
- Somewhat in contrast to that is SPARC’s vision for institutional repositories as it existed in the early 2003. The view that SPARC took of institutional repositories 14 years ago was first that institutional repositories could be used to inform scholarly communication by developing an alternative disaggregated model for scholarly publishing that would expand through open access models. In other words institutional repositories were an alternative place for scholars to publish the results of their work. And second that institutional repositories created new mechanism for demonstrating the significance of an institutions research activity. Plutchak points out that these two ideas are not necessarily in opposition to one another although they do differ. In essence he says Sparks vision for institutional repositories was that institutional repositories would support the transition from traditional publication to new open access models of publication. While lynches vision for institutional repositories was to use innovation to supplement and complement traditional publishing.
- Plutchak went on to describe some of the challenges that institutional repositories are currently facing. One of these is their impact on commercial publishing. Institutional repositories he says are creating competition with commercial publishing and by doing so are creating a threat to commercial publishers business models. In particular it is green OA that is making this happen. Another problem that occurs when we create this competition with commercial publishing is that, scholars and researchers are making available multiple, slightly different, versions of their articles, which makes more work for libraries who are trying to collect all of these versions in their institutional repositories. This creates the challenge of too many copies. Which creates the need to track all of these versions. The more versions, the harder it becomes to choose the best version, not to mention to determine how each version relates to the version of record. In order to solve this, Putchak recommends that libraries allow the national repositories, such as PubMed Central, which are better at that kind of tracking and often the place where federally funded research must be deposited, to maintain the version of record. And furhter that institutional repositories only ingest an open access version of published research when doing so is the only way of providing open access to that research. Reducing duplication of open access versions so that librarians are more assured of pointing patrons to the best possible version I’m an article. The final challenge for institutional repositories that Plutchak points out is one that I’ve already mentioned. It turns out that I and my institution weren’t the only ones who are struggling to achieve faculty buy-in for our repositories. One of the reasons that I’m telling you about what Plutchak has to say about institutional repositories is that I think all of his remarks are predicated in the idea of the academic library providing a public good in the form not only of the research that their scholars are doing and the knowledge that they’re adding to their respective fields, but also in the form of making the results of research more freely and openly available to other researchers and to the public.
- I mentioned at the beginning of this talk, the big ideas are not mine but those of people who are much smarter than me. Heather Joseph the current executive director of SPARC is one of those people. I recently heard Heather speak about the power of open access. The focus of her talk what’s the lessons that SPARD during its first decade of existence and that had emerged from a strategic review that SPARC done of its own work. There were several important takeaways in Joseph’s talk for me, the first of which is fairly obvious. The open access movement is rooted in technology, but scholarly publishing hasn’t caught up. The result is that we’re still trying to force the model that characterized scholarly publishing on the web during the 1990s, that is 20th Century policies and practices, onto 21st-century information. Joseph suggests that this model needs a radical reset because it doesn’t allow us to take advantage of networked digital technologies. She also asks that we consider this question: If we could reinvent the system of screen sharing scholarship and research in a way that’s optimized for the academy what would that look like and how would we get there. This is a question that was asked at the meeting at which the BOA I was developed and a question that Heather thinks that we should continue to ask ourselves. One of the main ideas that I came away from Heather’s talk with was the recognition that this idea of the public good is not only embedded in the work of libraries and librarians but also in the work of scientists and scholars. This is evident in many of the documents and statements about open access they merge during the early to thousands not least of which what’s the BOAI. I know I’ve used that before, but in this context, I think it bears repeating.
- The focus of Joseph’s presentation as I’ve mentioned was lessons that SPARChas learned from the first decade of open access. She captures this in the form of problems and solutions to those problems by saying the the fractured Ness comes from different open access constituencies having different problems as their focus. For example for librarians the problem that open access has the potential to solve is the rapidly increasing price of journal subscriptions. For researchers the problem that open access potentially solvesis getting the good and useful materials upon which to build new research and advanced knowledge out from behind a pay wall altogether. For universities it’s making available through open access the materials that make up the scholarly record and demonstrate the institutional capital created by their faculty. More evidence of this fractured Ness that’s developed over the past decade of the open access movement is exemplified by the parallel movements within the academy that are happening without much collaboration, that is without any deliberate effort to look for synergies, or for ways to leverage the collective direction of moving towards open access. Right now the green Road open access is appealing to libraries despite the challenges or possibly even disadvantages that Plutchak describes depending on one’s vision of the purpose of the repository. But the gold road to open access is appealing to researchers because it would conceivably allow them to identify the entire corpus of research in their discipline Both the green road and the gold road to open access are legitimate in their own way but they’ve also led to the feeling that the various communities working towards up open access are actually working against one another. Plutchak makes the same point when he describes the two different visions have Open access.
- So Joseph asks how does SPARC create a strategy to pull all of these things together. SPARC asked its various stakeholders in open access to help them think about what we know now that we didn’t know 10 years ago and how can we use that knowledge to address the creation a strategy for moving forward. They came up with four things, four strategies that they see as being the most direct efficient ways to move open access forward. The first one is to look at the whole board the whole picture all of these things all of these views all of these problems that the stakeholders have and, at best, identify the commonalilties among the problems that need to be solved, or at least which should take priority. It the second one is to clearly define our end goal, that is setting the default to open access for research and education. In other words, information should be open until or unless there’s a good reason to lock it down. Third approach the question of why open from a different perspective not just open for open sake but rather open in order to song the problems the end problems that these stakeholder groups have identified. In particular spark sees this as a way of deepening each stakeholder group engagement in and support for open access In fourth reward open in meaningful ways, in other words, find ways of engaging my faculty in open access behavior not just open access rhetoric, that is, changing promotion and tenure guidelines so that they reward Open access behavior.
- This last means of moving open access forward that SPARC is focused on is a really big one for me, this is the one that has been struggle to implement and manage an and it’s the one that I hear my colleagues and former colleagues struggling with and quite honestly the one that seemed for a long time to be insurmountable. And so for me to hear this is initiative that entity with the amount of recognition and clout that SPARC has is truly a breakthrough. It’s a breakthrough that Joseph made clear and concrete in her talk with the example that she gave. An example it that Makes it seem as if we as a profession perhaps a group of professions are finally in a position to overcome this barrier.
- The example to Joseph uses is VP Biden’s cancer moonshot initiative to accelerate cures for cancer, specifically to find strategies that take barriers that are in the way of cancer research, cancer cures. Tis initiative asks the question how can we move faster towards the goal of curing cancer. VP Biden is going out and asking all kinds of stakeholders what strategies they can give to help him achieve this goal to solve this problem of cancer. SPARC made three recommendations. First, to make all cancer research immediately open access, second, to make all cancer research data immediately available in open access, and finally and again most excitingly for me reward the researchers doing the research for doing that research and making it open access by tying making them open access to promotion and tenure. And there is evidence that Mr Biden and the Cancer Moonshot initiative has taken these three recommendations to heart and are acting on them. References to them are appearing in Bidens speeches on the topic of his cancer moonshot and in particular promotion and tenure perform. That’s tremendous tremendous that promotion and tenure reform is finally being recognized only being recognized as necessary to moving the open access movement forward and to solving problems. In fact SPARC has made tenure and promotion reform one of their key priorities for 2016. They’re rolling out an initiative called change the form, and buy form they are referring to promotion and tenure guidelines ,and this campaign is aimed at institutions, deans, and faculty and to get them to demonstrate by their behavior but open access is important to them. THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS!
- Hi everyone I’m flattered that there’s so many of you here are staying on the last morning of the conference thank you for that. My name is Sarah Sutton and I’m on the faculty of the school a library and information management at Emporia State University. One of my research interests is scholarly communication, not only the communication itself but how we measure the impact of scholarly work. What I’m going to talk about this morning is the intersection, At least in my thinking, of the open access movement, Institutional repositories, and the notion of libraries providing a public good, specifically academic libraries. I’ve been interested in most of these ideas throughout my professional life both while I was a practicing academic library and as a librarian educator. It’s probably best that I start with the disclaimer. Most of the ideas that I want to share today are not my own but rather they are ideas that I’ve been exposed to recently at conferences dedicated to these specific types of things; scholarly communication in particular. My purpose today is really to share some of these ideas with this audience because it occurs to me that not everyone in this room may have had the opportunity to attend these specialized conferences.