- Anonymous, Decentralized and Uncensored File-Sharing Is Booming, http://bit.ly/zGFvkB
- Scholarly Articles for Everyone! JSTOR's Register and Read Program Launches, http://bit.ly/xvC7dS
- A Look Inside the Boycott of Elsevier: A Q&A with Tim Gowers and Tyler Neylon, http://bit.ly/xWqT9W
- The Impact of Random House Price Increases, http://bit.ly/xm8Bcn
- Finally, an Easy-ish Question [Authors Guild et al. v. Hathitrust et al.], http://bit.ly/xYJgLC
Tufts University is recruiting an Archivist for Digital Collections – Digital Collections and Archives.
Here's an excerpt from the ad:
The Archivist for Digital Collections (ADC) oversees the formulation, preparation, and management of digital objects and collections for the DCA with a particular focus on developing tools and workflows to maximize efficiency in digital collections management. This work includes: database manipulation, scripting, supervising student workers, developing policies and procedures concerning digital objects and metadata, implementing appropriate standards and best practices, conducting quality assurance for digital collections, undertaking preservation activities, and managing the DCA's locally-developed collections management system, CIDER. The ADC, working closely with the Director, acts as project manager for projects yielding digital collections including proposal development, and implementation and oversight of funded projects, and serves as a primary point of contact for faculty requiring assistance managing electronic research materials.
According to a library staff member, the Utah State Faculty Senate passed a proposed "Retention of Authors Copyright to Scholarly Articles and Deposit in the University's Open Access Repository" policy yesterday (see section 3:40, item 1). The policy will be sent next to the Human Resources department for further consideration since it is a proposed personnel policy.
Here's an excerpt:
(1) Author's Rights
The University recognizes the importance of copyright and urges faculty members to retain rights to their own scholarly articles. Therefore, if a publisher's standard contract requires the transfer of copyright and/or does not allow deposit in the University's open access repository, the University expects faculty authors to negotiate the terms of the publisher's contract by attaching an addendum to the contract asserting the author's right to retain the copyright and/or the right to deposit the published version or pre-print version of the scholarly article in the University's open access repository. Should a publisher insist on the transfer of copyright as a condition of publication or refuse to permit the deposition of the published version or preprint version of the scholarly article in the University's open access repository, it is at the faculty author's discretion whether or not to continue with the publication, which will invoke an automatic waiver to this policy (see 5.2(2)).
(2) Deposit in the University's Open Access Repository
Each faculty member grants permission to the University to post in the University's open access repository all of his or her scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles published while employed by the University. In legal terms each faculty member grants to the University a nonexclusive license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for profit, and to authorize others to do the same. This license in no way interferes with the rights of a faculty author as the copyright holder of the work but instead promotes a wide distribution and increased impact of the author's work. If a faculty author's attempt to retain full rights is unsuccessful, the author may proceed with publication, thereby invoking an automatic waiver for that particular article. While it is not necessary in these situations to formally request a waiver, it is recommended that the author send the bibliographic citation to the Library, alerting librarians that a waiver is being invoked and that the publication may not be posted in the University's open access repository.
The University of Texas–Pan American Library is recruiting a Digital Project Librarian.
Here's an excerpt ad:
- Responsible in managing daily operations related to the digitization, cataloging, classification, and access of archival materials.
- Creates, manages and organizes digitization projects.
- Catalogs and classifies digitized print, audio-visual and oral history.
- Creates and maintains a website for the digitized items.
- Seeks permission for copyrighted material for digitizing.
- Works in collaboration with other area libraries and museums for digitization of some archival collections.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has issued a "Mobile User Privacy Bill of Rights".
Here's an excerpt:
Mobile smartphone apps represent a powerful technology that will only become more important in the years to come. But the unique advantages of the smartphone as a platform—a device that's always on and connected, with access to real world information like user location or camera and microphone input—also raise privacy challenges. . . .
Fortunately, frameworks exist for understanding the privacy rights and expectations of the users. The following guide of best practices pulls from documents like EFF's Bill of Privacy Rights for Social Network Users and the recently released White House white paper "Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World" to set a baseline for what mobile industry players must do to respect user privacy.
Here's an excerpt from the associated "Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings":
Defendants are wildly exceeding the special privileges Congress granted to libraries under Section 108 by systematically digitizing, reproducing, distributing and putting at risk millions of works through their mass book digitization program. Defendants' so-called orphan works program is similarly inimical to the Copyright Act, as it violates Section 108(h)'s explicit limitation of libraries' use of orphan works to the twenty year period preceding the end of their copyright term. Neither fair use under Section 107, nor any other statutory exception under the Copyright Act, can justify Defendants' systematic and concerted digitization, reproduction, distribution and other unauthorized uses of millions of copyright-protected library books. Accordingly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to grant their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
Read more about it at "GBS: Authors Guild Goes for an Early Knockout," "Guild Motion Asks for Quick Ruling on HathiTrust's Fair Use Defense," and "A Masterpiece of Misdirection."
Marjan Grootveld and Jeff van Egmond have self-archived "Peer-Reviewed Open Research Data: Results of a Pilot" in E-LIS.
Here's an excerpt:
Peer review of publications is at the core of science and primarily seen as instrument for ensuring research quality. However, it is less common to value independently the quality of the underlying data as well. In the light of the "data deluge" it makes sense to extend peer review to the data itself and this way evaluate the degree to which the data are fit for re-use. This paper describes a pilot study at EASY—the electronic archive for (open) research data at our institution. In EASY, researchers can archive their data and add metadata themselves. Devoted to open access and data sharing, at the archive we are interested in further enriching these metadata with peer reviews.
As pilot we established a workflow where researchers who have downloaded data sets from the archive were asked to review the downloaded data set. This paper describes the details of the pilot including the findings, both quantitative and qualitative. Finally we discuss issues that need to be solved when such a pilot should be turned into structural peer review functionality of the archiving system.
Peter Suber has published "A Tale of Two Bills: The Research Works Act and Federal Research Public Access Act" in the latest issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
Here's an excerpt:
(1) The Research Works Act (RWA)
The RWA is now dead, withdrawn by its Congressional sponsors and chief lobbyist-supporter. But here's a biography and obituary. . . .
(2) The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)
(2.1) FRPAA would strengthen the OA mandate at the NIH, by reducing the maximum embargo to six months, and then extend the strengthened policy to all the major agencies of the federal government. In that sense, it's the opposite of the RWA. . . .
(2.2) FRPAA uses the term "free online public access" without definition. But for convenience I'll say here that FRPAA requires "OA".
It requires agencies to come up with their own OA policies within the general guidelines laid down in the bill. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution and agencies are free to differ on the details. If the bill passes, they'll have one year to develop their policies (Section 4.a).
But agencies must mandate OA to agency-funded research. The must mandate OA "as soon as practicable" after publication (4.b.4), but no later than six months after publication. The guidelines do not stipulate the timing of deposits, only the timing of OA. For researchers employed and not merely funded by the federal government, FRPAA allows no embargo at all (4.c.2).
Like the NIH policy, FRPAA applies to the authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts (4.b.2), not to the published editions of their articles. Like the NIH policy, it allows consenting publishers to replace the peer-reviewed manuscripts with the published editions (4.b.3). It does not apply to classified research or royalty-producing work such as books (4.d.3). It also exempts patentable discoveries, but only "to the extent necessary to protect a…patent" (4.d.3).
Unlike the NIH policy, FRPAA doesn't specify the OA repository in which authors must deposit their manuscripts, the way the NIH specifies PubMed Central. Agencies could host their own repositories or make use of existing repositories, including the institutional repositories of their researchers. FRPAA only requires that the repositories meet certain conditions of OA, interoperability, and long-term preservation (4.b.6).
FRPAA and the NIH policy differ slightly in how they secure permission for the mandated OA. The NIH requires grantees to retain the non-exclusive right to authorize OA through PubMed Central. If a given publisher is not willing to allow OA on the NIH's terms, then grantees must look for another publisher. FRPAA requires agencies to "make effective use of any law or guidance relating to the creation and reservation of a Government license that provides for the reproduction, publication, release, or other uses of a final manuscript for Federal purposes" (4.c.3). The FRPAA approach gives agencies more flexibility. Agencies may use the battle-tested NIH method if they wish. They may use a federal-purpose license such as that codified in 2 CFR 215.36(a) (January 2005) if they wish. Or they may make use of "any [other] law or guidance" that would be "effective" in steering clear of infringement.
FRPAA does not amend copyright or patent law (4.e).
FRPAA applies to all unclassified research funded in whole or part (4.b.1) by agencies whose budgets for extramural research are $100 million/year or more (4.a). This includes the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
The House and Senate versions of the bill are identical. FRPAA was introduced twice before (in 2006 and 2009-10), and is essentially identical to both previous versions. . . .
(2.8) Will FRPAA pass?
We don't know, of course. Several factors weigh against it: This is an election year. Congress is as gridlocked and incapacitated as it has ever been, even for legislation with bipartisan support. Many policy issues have a higher priority in Congress than OA.
But several factors boost its chances. This is FRPAA's third time around, and the first two times did a lot of the hard work in educating policy-makers about the issues. The first two times around also gathered some significant endorsements, for example, more than 120 US college and university presidents and provosts, 41 Nobel laureates, major library and public-interest organizations, and at least two non-academic, business-oriented organizations, NetCoalition and the Committee for Economic Development. The White House RFI responses are generally stronger than FRPAA; they're already public and may soon appear in Interagency Working Group reports and White House action.
Finally we can't overlook the RWA shipwreck and the rising tide that beached it. The same forces that brought down RWA are now refocusing on raising up FRPAA. The same forces that protect the NIH policy from repeal now want to see it strengthened and extended to other agencies. The Congressional offices which have begun to understand the issues are heartily tired of publisher misrepresentations.
The RWA, COMPETES Act, FRPAA, and the White House RFI can be put in roughly this order: anti, weak, strong, and stronger. Subtract anti and what do you have? Unambiguous good news. Only time will tell how good it is. And that's where you come in.
Regular readers of DigitalKoans know that the blog typically publishes 4-5 posts Sunday through Thursday nights. This has been fairly consistent in recent years, resulting in over 4,400 posts since April 2005.
There will a short-term change in that posting pattern. Posting activity is likely to be more erratic, with a variable number of posts being published Sunday through Thursday night. When a normal posting pattern will resume, this will be announced.