Sharing your scholarship while avoiding the predators: Guidelines for medical physicists interested in open access publishing

Originally published in Med. Phys. 41 (7), July 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4883836. Despite the copyright notice displayed, the author signed an agreement retaining copyright to this work, and licensing it under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/107463/1/kahn_medphys.pdf17Description of kahn_medphys.pdf : articl

Emerging Models in Humanities Publishing: Institutional Implications; Remarks on the Subject of Publisher Eligibility

Remarks delivered at the 2015 ARL Fall Forum as part of the panel "Emerging Models in Humanities Publishing: Institutional Implications." I describe how publishers might be deemed eligible to participate in a system of institutionally-funded subventions for monograph-length scholarly works.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134689/1/ARL Fall Forum remarks mkahn.pdfDescription of ARL Fall Forum remarks mkahn.pdf : remark

Age-Related Effects on Markers of Inflammation and Cartilage Metabolism in Response to an Intra-Articular Lipopolysaccharide Challenge

Eighteen Quarter Horses were utilized in a randomized complete design for a 28 d experiment to evaluate age-related effects on inflammation and cartilage turnover after induction of a single inflammatory insult using lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Horses were grouped by age, with yearlings (yearling; n = 3 males, n = 3 females), 2 to 3 yr olds (2/3; n = 2 males, n = 4 females), and mature 5 to 8 yr olds (mature; n = 2 males, n = 4 females). On d 0, all horses were housed individually and fed diets that met or exceeded NRC (2007) requirements. On d 14, horses were challenged with an intra-articular injection of LPS. Carpal joints were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 ng LPS solution obtained from E. coli O55:B5, or 0.8mL sterile lactated Ringer’s solution as a contralateral control. Synovial fluid was collected prior to LPS injection at pre-injection h 0 (PIH 0) and 6, 12, 24, 168, and 336 h post-injection. Samples were later analyzed using commercial ELISA kits for prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), collagenase cleavage neoepitope (C2C), and carboxypropeptide of type II collagen (CPII). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and rectal temperature (RT) were monitored over the first 24 h and carpal circumference and surface temperature were recorded with additional measurements at 168 and 336 h. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedure of SAS. Values for RT, HR, and RR were within normal range. HR and RT were influenced by age (P < 0.01), while RR was unaffected by age (P ≤ 0.21). Joint circumference was not influenced by age (P = 0.84), but circumference and surface temperature increased (P < 0.01) over time across all age groups. Synovial PGE2 concentrations tended (P = 0.09) to be influenced by age with yearlings having lower (P = 0.03) concentrations than mature horses. Synovial C2C concentrations were affected by age with yearlings and 2/3 yr olds having lower (P < 0.01) concentrations than mature horses. Concentrations of synovial CPII were influenced by age with yearlings and 2/3 yr old having lower (P ≤ 0.02) concentrations than mature horses. Ratios of CPII:C2C were influenced by age with mature and 2/3 yr old horses having increased (P < 0.01) values compared to yearlings. These results indicate that inflammation and corresponding cartilage turnover in response to LPS administration vary with age

Conducting a Comprehensive Survey of Publishing Activity at Your Institution

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134688/1/pubsurveyslides.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134688/2/pubsurveynotes.pdfDescription of pubsurveyslides.pdf : slidesDescription of pubsurveynotes.pdf : remark

Publish, not Perish: Supporting Graduate Students as Aspiring Authors

BACKGROUND Students pursuing advanced degrees are increasingly expected to contribute to their discipline’s scholarly discourse during their tenure in graduate school. However, they are often unsure of how or where to begin the publishing process, and do not always feel comfortable asking for help from their faculty advisors or fellow students. Scholars, including librarians, have attempted to address these concerns by developing tools and services to meet the needs of future faculty. In recent years, university presses and research libraries have recognized their shared mission in furthering scholarship, with libraries themselves offering publishing education and expertise. PROJECT OVERVIEW During the 2012-2013 academic year, subject librarians and publishing professionals at the University of Michigan Library crafted a program to address students’ questions and concerns about the publishing lifecycle. This ongoing initiative includes a multi-semester workshop series developed in concert with faculty from departments throughout campus, as well as a supplementary online toolkit that takes into account the rapidly evolving nature of scholarly communication. LESSONS LEARNED Major takeaways from this program include: the value of student assessment in shaping publishing workshops; awareness of the discrepancies of registration numbers and actual attendance, highlighting the potential for enhanced promotion techniques; the importance of university press and faculty insight; and the benefits of collaboration among librarians, publishing professionals, and faculty members. NEXT STEPS Future iterations of this program will incorporate in-depth assessment of each program, a more interactive learning environment, and better scheduling and promotion of the workshop series

Guiding Design: Exposing Librarian and Student Mental Models of Research Guides

This article details an open card sort study administered to undergraduate students, graduate students, and librarians at the University of Colorado at Boulder in order to reveal perceptions of library research guides. The study identifies user group preferences for organization and content of research guides, as well as themes emerging from the collected study data that contrast librarian and user mental models. Interested librarians will gain insights into student perceptions and use of research guides in academic libraries today as well as recommendations for guide design.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89875/1/12.1.sinkinson.pd

How Much Do Monographs Cost? And Why Should We Care?

What does it cost to make a high quality, digital monograph? What may sound like an obvious question turns out to be a very knotty one, driving to the heart of the essence of scholarly publishing today. It is particularly relevant in an environment where the potential of a sustainable open access (OA) business model for monographs is being explored. Two complementary studies funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in 2015 have explored this question to understand the costs involved in creating and disseminating scholarly books. The team at Ithaka S+R studied the full costs of publishing monographs by gathering cost data on a sample of 382 titles across 20 presses. This process involved working with directors, CFOs, and many operational staff to understand the way staff time and effort contribute to the publishing process. In parallel, a separate project at Michigan and Indiana used a top‐down model to identify those costs related to monograph publishing at the University of Michigan Press and Indiana University Press. This cost study was part of a larger project in which focus groups and interviews were conducted with faculty and administrators to explore institutional openness to a flipped business model where the costs of producing a monograph would be borne by the author’s parent institution. The data from these two projects will help to understand how an OA monograph model could work. The studies also get at issues critical to the future of scholarly publishing: Which activities are critical to the creation of scholarly books? When does authoring end and publishing begin? How great a role do publishers play in not just producing a book, but in asserting its place in the scholarship and in current debates? A flipped model of funding monographs has major implications for publishers, libraries, and faculty, so a deep understanding of such questions is essential for the long‐term health of the scholarly communication ecosystem, especially in the humanities and social sciences

Humanities Commons Implementation Task Force Report

The work of the Humanities Commons Implementation Task Force grew out of its predecessor, the Humanities Commons Planning Task Force, which was established in the fall of 2018 and concluded its work in the spring of 2019. The planning group recommended adoption of the Humanities Commons platform in order to provide improvements to society-provided infrastructure for association management, membership engagement and retention, and presentation and preservation of society-authored content. In addition to these achievements, the task force has identified issues that require future action and support from the society. Recommendations include more fully integrating the ARLIS/NA Commons as a platform as well as the ARLIS/NA Manager position into society business. Actions to achieve this include editing communication to new society members to include a ARLIS/NA Commons registration link and establishing an editorial board content advisory subcommittee that facilitates discussion on the Commons, society-authored content, and records management. Additions to the ARLIS/NA Policy Manual that define expectations for accessibility and guidance on records retention for constituent groups would also benefit the society. More broadly, the task force’s work has emphasized the importance of submitting society-authored content to a repository for effective preservation and discovery. By acting as a leader in information management, the society will educate and encourage its membership and others in the profession to follow its example

Model Publishing Contract for Digital Scholarship

Created with the generous support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Model Publishing Contract for Digital Scholarship has been prepared to facilitate the publication of open access books, including accommodating new types of long-form, multimodal digital scholarship. In order to ensure this contract meets the needs of both authors and publishers, it incorporates feedback from authors, publishers, and other interested stakeholders. Description of files: (1) Agreement: The model contract itself. Provided as a Word document to facilitate customization and re-use. (2) Permissions template: Template permissions letter appropriate for use with the agreement. (3) Introduction: Introductory and background information on the Model Publishing Contract project; list of contributors. (4) Guide: A guide to customizing the agreement for your own use; scenarios for re-use. (5) Glossary: Glossary of legal terms used in the agreement.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138828/5/Permissions template.docxhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138828/6/Intro.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138828/7/Guide.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138828/8/Glossary.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138828/12/AGREEMENT.docx17Description of Permissions template.docx : Permissions templateDescription of Intro.pdf : Introduction to Model ContractDescription of Guide.pdf : Guide to Using Model ContractDescription of Glossary.pdf : Glossary of Legal TermsDescription of AGREEMENT.docx : Contract templat

A Study of Direct Author Subvention for Publishing Humanities Books at Two Universities: A Report to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation by Indiana University and University of Michigan

This report was produced as the main deliverable from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Grant 41400692, “A Study of Direct Author Subvention for Publishing Humanities Books at Two Universities.” The Indiana University team led by PI Carolyn Walters, consisted of Jason Baird Jackson, Scott Smart, Nick Fitzgerald, Gary Dunham and Shayna Pekala. The University of Michigan team led by PI James Hilton consisted of Paul Courant, Sidonie Smith, Meredith Kahn, Charles Watkinson, Jim Ottaviani, and Aaron McCollough. Lead authorship of the different sections in this report is indicated in the opening paragraphs. Supplemental data to this report is available at http://hdl.handle.net/2022/20358.This white paper presents recommendations about how a system of monographic publication fully funded by subventions from authors’ parent institutions might function, based on research activities supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation at Indiana University and the University of Michigan. While the contributors present a strong argument for implementing such an “author subvention” system, they describe a number of challenges and potential unintended consequences. Particular issues discussed include how to determine which publishers would be eligible for support, how best to support untenured faculty, and how to avoid disenfranchising scholars at less well-funded institutions.Andrew W. Mellon Foundatio