Impact, Attention, Influence? Potential Use Of Altmetrics In Academic Libraries

As the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics (Altmetrics) Initiative develops standards surrounding altmetrics, it is necessary to consider the relevance of altmetrics to the research community, including academic libraries. An emerging method of evaluating and discovering scholarly work through open data and social media, altmetrics represent a new assessment metric capable of capturing social impact trends. This session will give participants a basic understanding of the young and evolving field of altmetrics: what they are, who provides them, and a balanced perspective on their advantages and disadvantages. Beyond understanding the basics of altmetrics, this session will educate attendees about how altmetrics can be used by academic libraries, faculty, and researchers. This session is relevant to librarians regularly interacting with faculty/researchers, those supporting research evaluation projects, and anyone having a general curiosity in non-traditional bibliometrics

Are machine learning corpora “fair dealing” under Canadian law?

We consider the use of large corpora for training compuationally creative systems, particularly those that write new text based on the style of an existing author or genre. Under Canadian copyright law, a key concern for whether this is “fair dealing” is whether this usage will result in new creations that compete with those in the corpus. While recent law review articles in the United States suggest that training models on such corpora would be “fair use” in the United States, we argue that Canadian law may, in fact, forbid this use when the new products compete with works in the original corpusThe work of authors DB and MRG is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

White Paper: Measuring Research Outputs Through Bibliometrics

The suggested citation for this white paper is: University of Waterloo Working Group on Bibliometrics, Winter 2016. White Paper: Measuring Research Outputs through Bibliometrics, Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo.This White Paper provides a high-level review of issues relevant to understanding bibliometrics, and practical recommendations for how to appropriately use these measures. This is not a policy paper; instead, it defines and summarizes evidence that addresses appropriate use of bibliometric analysis at the University of Waterloo. Issues identified and recommendations will generally apply to other academic institutions. Understanding the types of bibliometric measures and their limitations makes it possible to identify both appropriate uses and crucial limitations of bibliometric analysis. Recommendations offered at the end of this paper provide a range of opportunities for how researchers and administrators at Waterloo and beyond can integrate bibliometric analysis into their practice

Le casse-tête de l’addenda de l’auteur: comparer l’utilisation des addenda du droit d’auteur avec la réception des maisons d’édition

The purpose of this paper is simultaneously to investigate researcher use and awareness of author addenda (e.g., the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition [SPARC] author addendum) and publisher awareness and acceptance of the same. Researchers at U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities institutions were targeted, and a survey was sent to faculty, graduate, and postdoctoral associations to share with their members. Following a low response rate, the survey was sent to a listserv of copyright librarians in Canada with a message that encouraged them to share it with researchers at their institutions. Eighty-one researchers responded to the survey. Eighty-six percent of researchers (n = 70) indicated that they were unaware of author addenda. Researchers were asked to identify how often they negotiate their publishing agreements, and of those who answered the question, 84.2% (n = 64) responded that they never negotiate. Thirteen publishers or publishing organizations were contacted and asked if they would participate in phone interviews about copyright practices and author addenda. Two large multinational publishers agreed to participate. Both publishers indicated that very few authors attempt to negotiate their agreements and that of those who choose to negotiate, even fewer use addenda. Both indicated that they do not accept the SPARC author addendum. This study’s small sample sizes mean that more information needs to be collected before firm conclusions can be drawn. Based on the responses from the two large publishers, the best way to help Tri-Agency-funded researchers may be for libraries and the Tri-Agency to negotiate with publishers for funder-based exceptions.L’objectif de cet article est d’étudier simultanément l’utilisation et la connaissance des addenda de l’auteur (par exemple, l’addenda de l’auteur de la Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition [SPARC]) et la connaissance et la réception de ceux-ci auprès des maisons d’édition. Les chercheurs des établissements du Regroupement des universités de recherche du Canada U15 ont été ciblés et un sondage a été envoyé aux associations de professeurs, d’étudiants diplômés et de stagiaires postdoctoraux afin d’être partagé auprès de leurs membres. En raison d’un faible taux de participation, un message a été envoyé à une liste de distribution de bibliothécaires en droit d’auteur au Canada pour encourager la diffusion du sondage auprès des chercheurs dans leurs institutions. Quatre-vingt-un chercheurs ont complété le sondage. Quatre-vingt-six pourcent des chercheurs (n = 70) ne connaissaient pas les addenda de l’auteur. Les chercheurs ont été demandés d’identifier la façon dont ils négocient leurs ententes de publication et, parmi ceux qui ont répondu à la question, 84,2% (n = 64) répondaient qu’ils ne négociaient jamais. Treize maisons d’édition ou organismes de publication ont été contactées afin de savoir si elles voulaient participer à des entrevues téléphoniques au sujet du droit d’auteur et des addenda de l’auteur. Deux grandes maisons d’édition multinationales ont accepté de participer. Les deux maisons ont indiqué que très peu d’auteurs tentent de négocier des ententes et que parmi ceux qui décident de négocier, encore moins utilisent un addenda. Les deux maisons ont indiqué qu’elles n’acceptent pas l’addenda de l’auteur SPARC. En se basant sur les réponses des deux grandes maisons d’édition, la meilleure façon d’aider les chercheurs financés par les trois organismes pourrait être que les bibliothèques et les trois organismes négocient avec les maisons d’éditions afin d’obtenir des exceptions basées sur le financement

Author Addendum Conundrum: Comparing Author Use of Copyright Addenda With Publisher Acceptance

The purpose of this paper is simultaneously to investigate researcher use and awareness of author addenda (e.g., the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition [SPARC] author addendum) and publisher awareness and acceptance of the same. Researchers at U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities institutions were targeted, and a survey was sent to faculty, graduate, and postdoctoral associations to share with their members. Following a low response rate, the survey was sent to a listserv of copyright librarians in Canada with a message that encouraged them to share it with researchers at their institutions. Eighty-one researchers responded to the survey. Eighty-six percent of researchers (n = 70) indicated that they were unaware of author addenda. Researchers were asked to identify how often they negotiate their publishing agreements, and of those who answered the question, 84.2% (n = 64) responded that they never negotiate. Thirteen publishers or publishing organizations were contacted and asked if they would participate in phone interviews about copyright practices and author addenda. Two large multinational publishers agreed to participate. Both publishers indicated that very few authors attempt to negotiate their agreements and that of those who choose to negotiate, even fewer use addenda. Both indicated that they do not accept the SPARC author addendum. This study’s small sample sizes mean that more information needs to be collected before firm conclusions can be drawn. Based on the responses from the two large publishers, the best way to help Tri-Agency-funded researchers may be for libraries and the Tri-Agency to negotiate with publishers for funder-based exceptions.L’objectif de cet article est d’étudier simultanément l’utilisation et la connaissance des addenda de l’auteur (par exemple, l’addenda de l’auteur de la Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition [SPARC]) et la connaissance et la réception de ceux-ci auprès des maisons d’édition. Les chercheurs des établissements du Regroupement des universités de recherche du Canada U15 ont été ciblés et un sondage a été envoyé aux associations de professeurs, d’étudiants diplômés et de stagiaires postdoctoraux afin d’être partagé auprès de leurs membres. En raison d’un faible taux de participation, un message a été envoyé à une liste de distribution de bibliothécaires en droit d’auteur au Canada pour encourager la diffusion du sondage auprès des chercheurs dans leurs institutions. Quatre-vingt-un chercheurs ont complété le sondage. Quatre-vingt-six pourcent des chercheurs (n = 70) ne connaissaient pas les addenda de l’auteur. Les chercheurs ont été demandés d’identifier la façon dont ils négocient leurs ententes de publication et, parmi ceux qui ont répondu à la question, 84,2% (n = 64) répondaient qu’ils ne négociaient jamais. Treize maisons d’édition ou organismes de publication ont été contactées afin de savoir si elles voulaient participer à des entrevues téléphoniques au sujet du droit d’auteur et des addenda de l’auteur. Deux grandes maisons d’édition multinationales ont accepté de participer. Les deux maisons ont indiqué que très peu d’auteurs tentent de négocier des ententes et que parmi ceux qui décident de négocier, encore moins utilisent un addenda. Les deux maisons ont indiqué qu’elles n’acceptent pas l’addenda de l’auteur SPARC. En se basant sur les réponses des deux grandes maisons d’édition, la meilleure façon d’aider les chercheurs financés par les trois organismes pourrait être que les bibliothèques et les trois organismes négocient avec les maisons d’éditions afin d’obtenir des exceptions basées sur le financement

The Cheese Stands Alone: Situating the University of Waterloo within the Canadian Academic Library Landscape

Despite a body of scholarly literature about the labour conditions of Canadian academic libraries/ians, little has been written about non-unionized Canadian librarians/archivists or the related historical and evolving labour environment at the University of Waterloo. Drawing on archival records and scholarly literature, this paper situates Waterloo within the Canadian academic library landscape in conversation with existing assumptions and understandings about academic and/or faculty status. It documents failed attempts at unionization and representation of librarians/archivists by the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo (FAUW), the role of Waterloo administration in those outcomes, and the nature of, and changes to, the Librarian and Archivist Employment Handbook over time.Malgré un corpus de publications scientifiques sur les conditions de travail des bibliothèques/bibliothécaires universitaires canadien.ne.s, peu a été publié sur les bibliothécaires/archivistes canadien.ne.s non syndiqué.e.s en général ou sur l'environnement de travail connexe historique et évolutif à Waterloo. S'appuyant sur des documents d'archives et la littérature savante, cet article situe Waterloo dans le paysage des bibliothèques universitaires canadiennes en conversation avec les hypothèses et les savoirs existants sur le statut académique et/ou professoral. Il documente les tentatives infructueuses de syndicalisation et de représentation par la Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo (FAUW—Association des universitaires de l'Université de Waterloo), le rôle de l'administration de Waterloo dans ces résultats, ainsi que la nature et les changements apportés au Librarian and Archivist Handbook (Manuel des bibliothécaires et archivistes) au fil du temps

Report on Transformative Agreements

This report was prepared for the University of Waterloo Library's Collection Strategy Committee to describe the current landscape of non-traditional publishing agreements between academic libraries and publishers. In addition to identifying and defining these types of agreements, this report provides criteria to use when deciding to sign a non-traditional agreement and suggests recommendations for moving forward with open access initiatives at Waterloo

Ici, non ailleurs: Anthologie collective Français 335 (hiver 2013)

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97541/1/Anthologie_2013.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97541/3/Release Deep Blue & Jenn B.doc