Archive for the 'Self-Archiving' Category

50 Universities or University Units Have Now Adopted Open Access Policies by Unanimous Faculty Votes

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 20th, 2015

With recent votes by Boston University and University of Delaware faculty, 50 universities or university units, such as schools, have now adopted open access policies by unanimous faculty votes.

Here's a list from Unanimous Faculty Votes. See the original document for omitted details, and see the recently revised (and praised) Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROARMAP) for a complete list of over 670 open access policies.

  1. February 12, 2008. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences
  2. April 27, 2008. Macquarie University
  3. May 7, 2008, Harvard University, School of Law
  4. June 10, 2008, Stanford University, School of Education
  5. October 2008, University College London (UCL)
  6. February 11, 2009. Boston University
  7. March 6, 2009, Oregon State University, Library Faculty
  8. March 18, 2009, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
  9. May 2009. University of Calgary, division of Library and Cultural Resources
  10. May 2009. University of Pretoria
  11. May 7, 2009, University of Oregon, Library Faculty
  12. May 14, 2009, University of Oregon, Department of Romance Languages
  13. May 14, 2009, Gustavus Adolphus College, Library Faculty
  14. October 1, 2009, York University, librarians and archivists
  15. October, 2009. Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela)
  16. November 18, 2009, Oberlin College
  17. December 2, 2009, University of Northern Colorado, Library Faculty
  18. February 1, 2010, Wake Forest University, Library faculty
  19. February 9, 2010, California Polytechnic State University
  20. February 12, 2010, Oregon State University College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS)
  21. February 24, 2010, University of Virginia
  22. February 25, 2010, Rollins College Faculty of Arts and Sciences
  23. March 18, 2010, Duke University
  24. March 24, 2010, University of Puerto Rico School of Law
  25. April 19, 2010, San Jose State University
  26. September 27, 2010, University of Northern Colorado
  27. October 2010, Trinity College Dublin
  28. December 22, 2010, Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
  29. March 15, 2011, Emory University
  30. May 11, 2011, University of Pennsylvania
  31. September 2011, Princeton University
  32. October 19, 2011, Florida State University
  33. December 8, 2011, Pacific University
  34. January 27, 2012, Bifröst University
  35. February 15, 2012, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto
  36. April 2012, Utah State University
  37. May 21, 2012, University of California, San Francisco
  38. February 6, 2013, Wellesley College
  39. March 4, 2013, College of Wooster
  40. March 5, 2013, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Library faculty
  41. March 21, 2013, University of Rhode Island
  42. April 2013, Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University
  43. June 13, 2013, Oregon State University
  44. December 2013, Télé-université (TELUQ), Université du Québec
  45. December 2, 2013, Columbia University, School of Social Work
  46. June 18, 2014, Harvard Medical School
  47. October 7, 2014, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
  48. October 9, 2014, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
  49. February 11, 2015, Boston University
  50. April 6, 2015, University of Delaware

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness"

Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 13th, 2015

A. Swan et al. have self-archived "Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness".

Here's an excerpt:

The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP, the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured for articles in institutions' repositories and compared to the total number of WoS-indexed articles published from those institutions. Average deposit rate was over four times as high for institutions with a mandatory policy. Six positive correlations were found between deposit rates and (1) Must-Deposit; (2) Cannot-Waive-Deposit; (3) Deposit-Linked-to-Research-Evaluation; (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention; (5) Must-Make-Deposit-OA (after allowable embargo) and (6) Can-Waive-OA. For deposit latency, there is a positive correlation between earlier deposit and (7) Must-Deposit-Immediately as well as with (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention and with mandate age. There are not yet enough OA policies to test whether still further policy conditions would contribute to mandate effectiveness but the present findings already suggest that it would be useful for current and future OA policies to adopt the seven positive conditions so as to accelerate and maximise the growth of OA.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Next Up for Agency Public Access Plans: NOAA"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 10th, 2015

SPARC has released "Next Up for Agency Public Access Plans: NOAA" by Heather Joseph.

Here's an excerpt:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released its plan to create policies ensuring public access to articles and data resulting from its funded research, as required by the February 2013 White House directive. . . .

The NOAA plan calls for all agency-funded intramural and extramural researchers to deposit final, accepted manuscripts into the agency's repository upon acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike many of the other agencies that have released plans to date, NOAA will also require its investigators to submit technical reports, data reports, and technical memoranda into the repository as well—significantly increasing the scope of the materials covered by the agency's policy.

NOAA will use the OSTP-suggested 12-month embargo period as its baseline. Like other agencies, it will provide stakeholders with a mechanism for petitioning the agency to change the embargo period. The plan indicates that requests must include evidence that outweighs the public benefit of having the embargo remain at one year. . . .

Currently, funded researchers are required to make data "visible and accessible" within two years. The new plan calls for this time frame to be shortened to just one year. It also indicates that data underlying the conclusions of peer-reviewed articles will most likely be required to be made available at the time of the article's publication, in appropriate repositories (presumably to be designated by NOAA).

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2015 First Quarter"

Posted in Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 9th, 2015

Heather Morrison has published "Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2015 First Quarter" in The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics.

Here's an excerpt:

OpenDOAR added 129 repositories for a total of 2,857. The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine added close to 3 million documents for a total of over 71 million documents. Another 7,690 authors joined the Social Sciences Research Network for a total of over 275,000 authors.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"NIST Releases Public Access Plan: Agency will Partner with NIH to use PMC Platform"

Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 9th, 2015

SPARC has released "NIST Releases Public Access Plan: Agency will Partner with NIH to use PMC Platform" by Heather Joseph.

Here's an excerpt:

NIST's plan calls for the agency to partner with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to use PubMed Central (PMC) as the repository for articles. The plan indicated that NIST selected this option in order to "leverage the well-established search, archival, and dissemination features of PMC."

All NIST-funded researchers will be required to deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts into PMC upon acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal and make them available to the public with no longer than a 12-month embargo period. NIST will also accept final published articles where allowed and will follow the NIH's current format requirements. As with the other agencies, NIST will provide stakeholders with a mechanism for petitioning the agency to "shorten or extend the allowable embargo period." NIST envisions that this process would take place through a public petition process run through the Federal Register. . . .

NIST's plan for providing public access to data consists of three components: requiring data management plans (DMPs), creating an Enterprise Data Inventory (EDI), and establishing a Common Access Platform providing a public access infrastructure.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Department of Defense Releases Draft Plan to Establish Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research

Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing, Self-Archiving on March 19th, 2015

The Department of Defense has released a draft Plan to Establish Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research .

Here's an excerpt from the SPARC announcement:

It calls for all DoD-funded researchers to deposit final peer-reviewed manuscripts into the Department's "Defense Technical Information Center" (DTIC) repository. All articles will be made available to the public with no longer than a 12 embargo period. . . .

The DoD draft plan doesn't elaborate on reuse rights for articles in the DTIC database, other than to note that articles will be subject to copyright and related license terms. Articles authored by DoD employees, however, will carry a full government use license. . . .

One significant place where the DoD's draft plan differs from others released to date is in the area of compliance. The Department indicates that it plans to develop its own "compliance monitor," that will issue "certification tokens" to authors who submit articles and datasets to the DoD under the new policies. The current document doesn't provide any additional details, but the concept of tokens is an intriguing one.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"What Factors Influence Where Researchers Deposit their Data? A Survey of Researchers Submitting to Data Repositories"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Digital Curation & Digital Preservation, Digital Repositories, Self-Archiving on February 25th, 2015

Shea Swauger and Todd J. Vision have published "What Factors Influence Where Researchers Deposit their Data? A Survey of Researchers Submitting to Data Repositories" in the International Journal of Digital Curation.

Here's an excerpt:

In order to better understand the factors that most influence where researchers deposit their data when they have a choice, we collected survey data from researchers who deposited phylogenetic data in either the TreeBASE or Dryad data repositories. Respondents were asked to rank the relative importance of eight possible factors. We found that factors differed in importance for both TreeBASE and Dryad, and that the rankings differed subtly but significantly between TreeBASE and Dryad users. On average, TreeBASE users ranked the domain specialization of the repository highest, while Dryad users ranked as equal highest their trust in the persistence of the repository and the ease of its data submission process. Interestingly, respondents (particularly Dryad users) were strongly divided as to whether being directed to choose a particular repository by a journal policy or funding agency was among the most or least important factors. Some users reported depositing their data in multiple repositories and archiving their data voluntarily.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"PeerJ—A PLOS ONE Contender in 2015?"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on February 2nd, 2015

Phil Davis has published "PeerJ—A PLOS ONE Contender in 2015?" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

In my last post, I reported that PeerJ was growing, publishing more papers and attracting more authors, although it was not clear whether the company was moving toward financial stability. In a crowded market of multidisciplinary open access journals, I argued that the success (or failure) of PeerJ would be determined when it received its first Impact Factor, which will be announced in mid-June with the publication of Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Report. The purpose of this post is to estimate PeerJ's first Impact Factor and discuss its implications.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Focusing on Student Research In The Institutional Repository DigitalCommons@USU"

Posted in Digital Repositories, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Research Libraries, Self-Archiving on November 5th, 2014

Danielle Barandiaran et al. have published "Focusing on Student Research In The Institutional Repository DigitalCommons@USU" in College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

Student research is a significant and rapidly growing component of the institutional repository (IR) at Utah State University (USU). A briefing paper prepared for Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS) points to student works as one of nine purposes for an IR.1 It is not uncommon to find undergraduate and graduate theses and dissertations in IRs. In 2013, an analysis of 283 U.S. repositories using the bepress or DSpsace platforms indicated 71% include this type of student research. However, other student research such as posters, presentations, or papers were only found in 38% of these repositories. Utah State University's IR actively solicits student research resulting from research groups and individuals, as well as posters and creative works featured in the university's Student Showcase symposium.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

All Harvard Schools Now Have Open Access Policies

Posted in Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Self-Archiving on October 24th, 2014

With the adoption of an open access policy in June by the Harvard Medical School, all Harvard schools now have open access policies.

Here’s an excerpt from the announcement:

Harvard Medical School adopted an open-access policy on June 18, 2014, by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Council. The new policy covers both "quad"-based and clinical faculty. Now all Harvard schools have open-access policies.

Like the other Harvard policies, the Medical School policy insures that faculty members automatically retain a license to share their research papers freely through DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), the University’s open-access repository. Faculty also have the option to waive this license for any article, preserving their freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice. When faculty write articles covered by the Medical School policy and the policy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they need only deposit once to comply with both.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on October 22nd, 2014

Phil Davis has published "PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

PeerJ is growing, publishing more papers and attracting more authors, although it is not clear whether the company is moving toward financial sustainability. In a crowded market of multidisciplinary open access journals, the success/failure of PeerJ may be determined when it receives its first Impact Factor.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score"

Posted in Open Access, Self-Archiving on October 15th, 2014

Philippe Vincent-Lamarre et al. have self-archived Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score.

Here's an excerpt:

MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"


Page 5 of 24« First...34567...1020...Last »

DigitalKoans

DigitalKoans

Digital Scholarship

Copyright © 2005-2017 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.