What it means to be Green: exploring publishers’ changing approaches to Green open access

The number of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving has increased noticeably over the last decade or so. However, new research by Elizabeth Gadd and Denise Troll Covey shows that this increase is outstripped by the proliferation of restrictions that accompany self-archiving policies. In an environment where publishers may in fact be discouraging preferred models of open access, it’s time to redefine what it means to be Green

usage and usability assessment: library practices and concerns

This report offers a survey of the methods that are being deployed at leading digital libraries to assess the use and usability of their online collections and services. Focusing on 24 Digital Library Federation member libraries, the study's author, Distinguished DLF Fellow Denise Troll Covey, conducted numerous interviews with library professionals who are engaged in assessment. The report describes the application, strengths, and weaknesses of assessment techniques that include surveys, focus groups, user protocols, and transaction log analysis. Covey's work is also an essential methodological guidebook. For each method that she covers, she is careful to supply a definition, explain why and how libraries use the method, what they do with the results, and what problems they encounter. The report includes an extensive bibliography on more detailed methodological information, and descriptions of assessment instruments that have proved particularly effective

What does “green” open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies

Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘yellow’ and ‘white’) and related restrictions and conditions over time. Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the twelve years, the volume of restrictions around how, where, and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options. Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access. Compares the number of RoMEO ‘green’ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ‘redefined green’ (allowing embargo -free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO ‘green’ increased by 8% and ‘redefined green’ decreased by 35% over the 12 years. Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended. Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what ‘green’ means to better reflect a publisher’s commitment to self-archiving

Recruiting Content for the Institutional Repository: The Barriers Exceed the Benefits

Focus groups conducted at Carnegie Mellon reveal that what motivates many faculty to self-archive on a website or disciplinary repository will not motivate them to deposit their work in the institutional repository. Recruiting a critical mass of content for the institutional repository is contingent on increasing awareness, aligning deposit with existing workflows, and providing value-added services that meet needs not currently being met by other tools. Faculty share concerns about quality and the payoff for time invested in publishing and disseminating their work, but disagree about metrics for assessing quality, the merit of disseminating work prior to peer review, and the importance of complying with publisher policies on open access. Bridging the differences among disciplinary cultures and belief systems presents a significant challenge to marketing the institutional repository and developing coherent guidelines for deposit

Opening the Dissertation: Overcoming Cultural Calcification and Agoraphobia

This article places the struggle to open access to the dissertation in the context of the crisis in doctoral education and the transition from print to digital literacy. It explores the underlying cultural calcification and agoraphobia that deter engagement with openness. Solving the problems will require overhauling the curriculum and conventions of doctoral education. Opening access to dissertations is an important first step, but insufficient to end the crisis. Only opening other dimensions of the dissertation – the structure, media, notion of authorship, and methods of assessment – can foster the digital literacy needed to save PhD programs from extinction. If higher education institutions invested heavily in remedying obsolete practices, the remedies would reverberate throughout the academy, accelerate advancement in the disciplines, and revolutionize scholarly publishing. The article ends with a discussion of the significant role librarians could play in facilitating needed changes given appropriate institutional commitment

ORCID @ CMU: Successes and Failures

Setting and Objectives: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) recently planned and implemented a project to help CMU researchers get an Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) and to enable administrators to integrate the ORCIDs into university systems. This article describes and assesses the planning, performance, and outcome of this initiative, branded ORCID @ CMU. Design and Methods: The article chronicles why and how ORCID was integrated at CMU, including the rationale for changes in strategic plans. It assesses researcher participation in the project using transaction log and content analyses, and the performance of the ORCID project team using recommendations in the Jisc ORCID project report, frankly reporting the team’s successes and failures. The article concludes with lessons learned that should inform ORCID integration projects and expectations at other institutions. Results: The ORCID @ CMU web application was a great success. However, the project team did not allow enough time to prepare or devote enough attention to advocacy. The marketing message was not sufficiently persuasive and the marketing channels were not particularly effective. The overall participation rate in ORCID @ CMU was far below the target of 40%, though participation in many demographics exceeded the goal. Conclusions: Strategic planning does not guarantee success. Secure more than lip service from senior administrators. Recruit champions from across the institution. Develop a message that resonates with researchers. Allow sufficient time to prepare. Empower the project manager. Start with the low hanging fruit. Develop special outreach to doctoral students and postdocs

Council on Library and Information Resources Washington, D.C.

this report possible. If the report facilitates discussion and research and encourages the development of benchmarks or best practices, it is because so many talented people shared their rewards and frustrations in trying to understand what is happening in their libraries and how to serve their users better. iii Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................. v 1