Reimagining the IR

Over the past decade, the rapidly evolving scholarly and digital landscape has necessitated that institutional repositories (IRs) be agile in order to meet the ever expanding needs of researchers. This has challenged IR infrastructure and pushed libraries to become not just collectors of open access content but publishers themselves. In this talk, Wipperman will discuss some of the ways in which repositories have changed over the past decade and how stakeholder needs have evolved alongside IR capabilities. She will look at current efforts to revolutionize IR infrastructure and propose ways that we might radically reimagine IRs as a community

Good Partners? Can Open Access Publishers and Librarians Find Meaningful Ways to Collaborate?

What should the relationship be between the purely Open Access publishers and librarians? Yes, in theory, among publishers these are publishers who are fully aligned with libraries to end the stranglehold which the traditional subscription publishers have on libraries. Yes, they are 100% attribution-only (CC-BY) publishers living up to the goals of Open Access (as described in the Budapest Open Access Initiative [BOAI]). But, are they just replacing over-priced subscriptions with over-priced APCs (Article Processing Charges)? Since they don\u27t have renewal revenue at risk they may not pay sufficient attention to usage and integration with library systems [KBART?, COUNTER?, etc.]. Since collection development librarians don\u27t have to assign budget dollars to purchasing their content--maybe they don\u27t need attention from librarians. The big subscription journals collect just one payment a year, and with big bundles, just one payment to cover thousands of journals. Are Open Access publishers just replacing that with thousands of tiny payments either in article processing costs, or in membership schemes for individual researchers? What are some initiatives that these publishers are trying that can avoid having the costs of publishing being invoiced to individual authors? Can these publishers, aligned as they are with libraries on the defects in the subscription system, be good partners with librarians in areas such as: Open Science Pre-print Servers Integration with Open Repositories Open Monograph publishing O.E.R. Library Publishing Conference hosting Is there more that they can do to effectively integrate with Library systems and processes? A panel of purely Open Access publishers and librarians brainstorm these and other questions affecting how the pure Open Access publishers and librarians might collaborate more effectively

Creative Commons: A License to Share Knowledge

A discussion of the types of creative commons (CC) licenses, how to assign them to your work, & how to find CC material –images, texts, & other original works—to use in your own teaching, writing, & scholarship

Historical Society and County Record Publications from the United Kingdom: A Finding Guide

The attached excel sheet is intended to be used as a finding aid for county records series and the publications of various historical societies in the United Kingdom. This document was created to support the work of Professor Margo Todd, her students, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of History. The information provided in this document is based on series holdings in the University of Pennsylvania libraries, primarily Van Pelt‐Dietrich, as well as those held in storage at LIBRA. It is designed to give a quick reference to these holdings, where they are located, and which geographic region they cover. It is by no means exhaustive and is a work in progress, but it should give the reader a good idea of the holdings available to the UPenn community

Life in the FASt Lane: Speedy Workflows for Providing a Faculty Assisted Submission (FAS) Service for Your IR

Including faculty papers in your repository is an essential function of an IR, but it can be tough to manage the solicitation and review of previously published materials. What can we legally add to faculty collections? Are there any requirements for posting? Can you rely on faculty to submit their work and comply with publisher policies? At the University of Pennsylvania, we have been developing workflows and processes to systematically run permissions on faculty CVs and upload them to Penn’s IR, ScholarlyCommons. Through our Faculty Assisted Submission (FAS) service, we are maximizing the libraries’ ability to support faculty works in the repository with as little effort as possible for the faculty member and the IR manager. Now in the second year of this program, we have quadrupled the number of faculty papers submitted since the first year, adding thousands to our collections. By leveraging free tools and common Library purchases, we have expanded the breadth of participation and fostered a growing sense of faculty interest in participating in Penn’s IR. All of this has been achieved by implementing a comprehensive training program for student workers and external administrators with oversight from a two-person scholarly communications team. While this program is by no means completely effortless, by investing heavily in the training of student workers up front, we have engaged students in scholarly communication literacy and provided the library with a mechanism for reliable ingestion of faculty materials into the IR. In this presentation, we will provide our shareable resources and give a step-by-step overview of our training module, permissions process, and ingestion workflows. We will discuss some of the challenges we still face and how you can leverage these approaches for your own institution

Balancing Influence in a Shifting Scholarly Communication Landscape: Creating Library-Owned, Community-Aligned Infrastructure Through Individual, Local, and Community Action

With the acquisition and creation of scholarly communication platforms/infrastructure by major commercial entities, the balance of influence continues to shift. The ACRL/SPARC Forum at the 2018 ALA Midwinter Meeting brought together library stakeholders for a conversation about how the library community can reassert its influence to shape the open access publishing landscape. Panelists focused on 1) Individual action: “What can one person do?” 2) Local coordinated action: “How can one group or institution effect change?” and 3) Collective action: “How can libraries work together to provide sustainable alternatives?

Library Publishing Research Agenda

This publication is an exploration of areas in which research is needed to support practice in the field of library publishing. The Research Agenda offers exploratory overviews of six topics (assessment, labor, accessibility, non-traditional research outputs, peer review, and partnerships), each of which includes a summary, potential research questions, and a list of relevant resources. This publication will be of interest to anyone conducting or interested in conducting research in the field. The Research Agenda was authored by LPC’s Research Committee with input from the LPC community. HTML versio

Digital Commons User Group Meeting

Last summer, the announcement that bepress had been acquired by Elsevier shook the library world. The University of Pennsylvania, a bepress customer for over 13 years, made the values-based decision to publicly state their intent to look for alternatives to bepress in a movement called “beprexit.” Since then, the beprexit team has openly embarked on a period of learning and exploration, trying to better understand user needs, the types of services the Penn Libraries wants to provide, and the overall repository landscape. In this user group, Sarah Wipperman will briefly present on Penn’s decision and their activities to date. The remainder of the meeting will focus on an activity designed to answer some of the same questions the beprexit team has been facing, asking participants to think critically about their own IRs and how we might better support each other as a library community in shared endeavors. This meeting will also feature updates from other organizations working in this arena. Come learn about what SPARC, ACRL, and others have been up to