Open Access/Open Research/Open Government: The Full Cycle of Access to Government Information

Stephanie Braunstein, Head Government Documents Librarian at Louisiana State University, and Maggie Kauffman, Senior Librarian and Housing Resource Coordinator at the California Department of Housing and Community Development, will describe the who, what, why, and how of current initiatives that promote the sharing of government-funded research--at both the federal and state levels. Emphasis will be placed on recent legislative efforts (such as the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act [FASTR]) and on the recommendations of various professional library organizations that support academic research (such as the Association of Research Libraries [ARL]). While much of the current discussion surrounding this issue takes place at the federal level, open access to information at the state level is vital in order to insure an educated and informed local population. After the informational portion of the presentation, the presenters will open up the floor for discussion with the intention of sharing a variety of perspectives on the government\u27s funding of research and how best to provide fair and equitable access to it

Anthropology and Open Access

While still largely ignored by many anthropologists, open access (OA) has been a confusing and volatile center around which a wide range of contentious debates and vexing leadership dilemmas orbit. Despite widespread misunderstandings and honest differences of perspective on how and why to move forward, OA frameworks for scholarly communication are now part of the publishing ecology in which all active anthropologists work. Cultural Anthropology is unambiguously a leading journal in the field. The move to transition it toward a gold OA model represents a milestone for the iterative transformation of how cultural anthropologists, along with diverse fellow travelers, communicate more ethically and sustainably with global and diverse publics. On the occasion of this significant shift, we build on the history of OA debates, position statements, and experiments taking place during the past decade to do three things. Using an interview format, we will offer a primer on OA practices in general and in cultural anthropology in particular. In doing so, we aim to highlight some of the special considerations that have animated arguments for OA in cultural anthropology and in neighboring fields built around ethnographic methods and representations. We then argue briefly for a critical anthropology of scholarly communication (including scholarly publishing), one that brings the kinds of engaged analysis for which Cultural Anthropology is particularly well known to bear on this vital aspect of knowledge production, circulation, and valuation. Our field’s distinctive knowledge of social, cultural, political, and economic phenomena should also—but often has not—inform our choices as both global actors and publishing scholars

Worldwide open access: UK leadership?

The web is destined to become humankind's cognitive commons, where digital knowledge is jointly created and freely shared. The UK has been a leader in the global movement toward open access (OA) to research but recently its leadership has been derailed by the joint influence of the publishing industry lobby from without and well-intentioned but premature and unhelpful over-reaching from within the OA movement itself. The result has been the extremely counterproductive ‘Finch Report’ followed by a new draft of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) OA mandate, downgrading the role of cost-free OA self-archiving of research publications (‘green OA’) in favor of paying subscription publishers over and above subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, in exchange for making single articles OA (‘hybrid gold OA’). The motivation of the new policy is to reform publication and to gain certain re-use rights (CC-BY), but the likely effect would be researcher resistance, very little OA and a waste of research funds. There is still time to fix the RCUK mandate and restore the UK's leadership by taking a few very specific steps to clarify and strengthen the green component by adding a mechanism for monitoring and verifying compliance, with consequences for non-compliance, along lines also being adopted in the EC and the US

Authors and open access publishing

Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of "self-archiving" wasless. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self-archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to

US open access life cycle

Based on the UK open access life cycle, in the centre circle, we have used the 7 stages of the publishing process as described by Neil Jacobs (Jisc), this is followed by institutional processes – of course not all institutions will have all of these processes up and running, e.g. we don’t all have a CRIS. We then included publisher services that directly impact upon the work of the open access team. We then went on to map above campus services to the life cycle. Finally, we added the 6 sections of OAWAL showing where we think that fits with the life cycle