Self-archiving and the Copyright Transfer Agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals

A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n = 52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one\u27s works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A society-led, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field\u27s research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others

The productive ward: releasing time to care- what we can learn from the literature for implementation

Aim: This paper reviews the Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care� literature, identifying and discussing the key characteristics that may contribute to successful implementation. Background: It is 5 years since the official UK launch of the Productive Ward, and the Republic of Ireland commenced a phased, national implementation programme in 2011. Thus it is timely to reflect on the implementation lessons learned to date and described in the literature. Evaluation: Using taxonomic mapping, this paper evaluates the current state of the literature that pertains to Productive Ward implementation experience; success factors; reports, and assessments. Key issues: Seven common contextual characteristics were identified: robust and engaging communication; enabling and empowering roles; appropriate training; project planning and management; leadership; corporate/management engagement and support; and financial and human resource commitment. Conclusion: The key characteristics identified have a direct impact on the implementation of the Productive Ward. The interplay between these key characteristics and how this interplay influences successful implementation of the Productive Ward warrants further research. Implications for nursing management: Acknowledging and embracing the seven characteristics during implementation will positively improve the progress and success of the initiatives implementation. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Managing change initiatives: Fantasy or reality? The case of public sector organisations

It is becoming a commonplace statement that change initiative programmes are key tools to organisational long-term success. To this end, the last two decades have witnessed a surge of interest in the take-up of various change initiative programmes. Organisational change initiatives, we are told by many commentators, can maximise shareholder value (i.e. economic value theory) and develop organisational capabilities (i.e. organisational capability theory). Specifically, in recent years, as companies have been confronted by the conditions of heightened competition, globalisation, and advancements in communications and information technologies, economic recession and a simultaneous search for excellence, so the desire to take up change initiatives has interested the majority of leading organisations. At the same time, however, the analysis of the prospects for the majority of change management tools reveals so many deepseated barriers to change with the consequence of little success in practice. This article explores this apparent contradiction, arguing that, despite a heightened interest in the take-up of change initiatives, very few change programmes produce an improvement in bottom-line, exceed the company’s cost of capital, or even improve service delivery. It also offers an explanation of why this is the case. To provide empirical verification for this, the article presents the results of four case studies conducted at public sector organisations in the UK. The findings continue to point to the ineffective nature of the top management’s contribution to managing organisational change programmes. Finally, using the case evidence, combined with previous research findings, the article explores the implications for senior management of attempts to move from, as Mintzberg (1999 : 146) put it, ‘direction and supervision towards protection and support’