The study aims to examine how artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially affect specific services provided by academic libraries in the near future. To achieve this, the study uses three different Generative AI systems: ChatGPT, Perplexity, and iAsk.Ai. . . . The three AI systems selected for this study represent different AI approaches that can be used in academic libraries. ChatGPT, for example, is a conversational AI system that can provide quick answers to patrons’ queries, while Perplexity is a language model that can assist with tasks such as cataloging and content classification. iAsk.Ai is a natural language processing (NLP) system that can assist with research and reference inquiries.
A key responsibility for many library publishers is to collaborate with authors to determine the best mechanisms for sharing and publishing research. Librarians are often asked to assist with a wide range of research outputs and publication types, including eBooks, digital humanities (DH) projects, scholarly journals, archival and thematic collections, and community projects. These projects can exist on a variety of platforms both for profit and academy owned. Additionally, over the past decade, more and more academy owned platforms have been created to support both library publishing programs. Library publishers who wish to emphasize open access and open-source publishing can feel overwhelmed by the proliferation of available academy-owned or -affiliated publishing platforms. For many of these platforms, documentation exists but can be difficult to locate and interpret. While experienced users can usually find and evaluate the available resources for a particular platform, this kind of documentation is often less useful to authors and librarians who are just starting a new publishing project and want to determine if a given platform will work for them. Because of the challenges involved in identifying and evaluating the various platforms, we created this comparative crosswalk to help library publishers (and potentially authors) determine which platforms are right for their services and authors’ needs.
The Artificial Intelligence and Libraries Bibliography includes over 125 selected English-language articles and books that are useful in understanding how libraries are exploring and adopting modern artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. It covers works from January 2018 through August 2023. It includes a Google Translate link. The bibliography is available as a website and a website PDF with live links.
Libraries have been exploring AI technology for a long time. In particular, there was an active period of experimentation from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s that primarily focused on the use of expert systems. Many projects used expert system shells, which simplified development; however, some projects also used AI languages, such as Prolog. This period produced a significant number of library-related AI papers.
Subsequently, library interest in AI diminished until around 2018, when research activity increased.
The public release of generative AI systems in late 2022, such as ChatGPT, sparked a strong upsurge of interest in them and a rush to utilize their capabilities. Since these systems are relatively easy to use, this development may result in a significant new wave of library-oriented AI activity.
This article examines the proposed artificial intelligence policies of the USA, UK, European Union, Canada, and China, and their implications for libraries. . . . The article highlights key themes in these policies, including ethics, transparency, the balance between innovation and regulation, and data privacy. It also identifies areas for improvement, such as the need for specific guidelines on mitigating biases in artificial intelligence systems and navigating data privacy issues. The article further provides practical recommendations for libraries to engage with these policies and develop best practices for artificial intelligence use.
The Open Library Foundation (OLF) is introducing the Open Resource Sharing Coalition (OpenRS), a resource sharing initiative created in partnership with library consortia, open source developers, and vendors. OpenRS is a heterogeneous resource sharing system that is ILS and Discovery agnostic and accommodates the full spectrum of mediated and unmediated resource sharing.
OpenRS acts upon a "consortia first" mentality, striving to provide libraries with the tools needed for robust and extended functionality for resource sharing. The project will focus on developing and implementing software systems, protocols, and best practices that foster collaboration and support various library services, including seamless unmediated intra-consortial borrowing functionality and expanded sharing across multiple consortia. The software will provide a containerized code base configured for ease of deployment, maintenance, and upgrades. Libraries and consortia can choose to host the service locally or with a third party. . . .
While yet to be an official project, OLF is expected to approve the OpenRS charter by the end of August. An official web presence will be added to the OLF site soon. Core OpenRS functionality for direct consortial borrowing will be rolled out as part of the MOBIUS release in May 2024. Additional features and functionality will be determined based on coalition feedback and implemented over the coming months and years.
Most importantly, the proposed agreement includes a permanent injunction that would, among its provisions, bar the IA’s lending of unauthorized scans of in-copyright, commercially available books, as well as bar the IA from "profiting from" or "inducing" any other party’s "infringing reproduction, public distribution, public display and/or public performance" of books "in any digital or electronic form" once notified by the copyright holder. . . .
The negotiated payment is all inclusive—it covers costs, fees, damages, and other claims, including the IA’s claim that damages should be remitted—something that should assuage initial concerns expressed by some who feared a massive damage award might force the nonprofit IA to cease operations. The negotiated judgment does seek destruction of the IA’s scans as the publishers’ initial complaint had suggested.
The proposed order would require the Archive to pay Lagardere SCA’s (LAGA.PA) Hachette Book Group, News Corp’s (NWSA.O) HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons (WLY.N) and Bertelsmann SE & Co’s (BTGGg.F) Penguin Random House an undisclosed amount of money if it loses its appeal.
The order would also permanently block the Archive from lending out copies of the publishers’ books without permission, pending the result of the appeal.
This book provides advice on how to analyze and apply the copyright law to specific areas encountered by librarians and instructors. . . . Written by Donna L. Ferullo, the Director of the University Copyright Office at Purdue University who holds both law and library science degrees and Dwayne K. Buttler, the Evelyn J. Schneider Endowed Chair for Scholarly Communication at the University of Louisville, who also holds a law degree.
The general implications of AI for libraries are much discussed in library literature. But while this discussion takes place at the library-wide level, there are also important implications for subject librarians due to the specific uses of AI in different professions and areas of study. These are often overlooked as these specializations tend to publish in subject-specific journals. This article aims to address this research gap by providing a comparison and thematic analysis of this literature. Subject-specific library journals in the areas of law, health sciences, business, and humanities and social sciences were searched to identify relevant journal articles that discussed AI. 139 articles were identified and tagged with at least one category that reflected the nature of the discussion around AI. The following analysis showed that literature related to law had the greatest number of articles by far, though the publishing activity in all disciplines has increased significantly in the last 10 years. This article explores these trends to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications for subject-specific library work.
This article provides an analysis of the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its implications for academic libraries. It delves into the report’s key points, including the importance of AI literacy, the need for educator involvement in AI design and implementation, and the necessity of preparing for AI related issues. The author discusses how these points impact academic libraries and offers actionable recommendations for library leaders. It emphasizes the need for libraries to promote AI literacy, involve librarians in AI implementation, develop guidelines for AI use, prepare for AI issues, and collaborate with other stakeholders.
The volume of OA content has proliferated in recent years, but the systems and workflows currently used by publishers and librarians were designed for traditional, pay-to-read models. Business processes are currently inadequate to address the requirements of—for example—transformative agreements, which require complex financial management and the tracking of authors and publishing outputs across large institutions. Libraries face challenges in managing micropayments and assessing the financial impact of such agreements, and authors often have difficulty determining whether their manuscript is eligible for OA publication under agreement terms. These complexities also impact publisher editorial and financial systems. As a result, organizations often adopt manual processes for managing these agreements, giving rise to inefficiencies across the ecosystem.
NISO’s Working Group will address the problem by identifying gaps in the infrastructure for OA publications and agreements, developing terminology to describe the surrounding processes, and outlining best practices for exchanging data and analytics and metrics. The work will focus first on the metadata required for exchange prior to publication as well as for article-level financial transactions, and then address reporting following publication. As the new Recommended Practice will be of interest to publishers, libraries, authors, funders, and OA advocates and community initiatives, the group is seeking volunteers representing a range of stakeholder groups from across the scholarly communications industry.
During this session, Thomas Padilla [Deputy Director, Archiving and Data Services at the Internet Archive] will present a critical and generative position aimed at empowering GLAM professionals on their journey to develop a mutually beneficial relationship with AI. The discussion will cover the individual, organizational, and community impacts of AI in the library landscape.
Since August 2021, Buckland has held the position of assistant deputy minister for collections at Library and Archives Canada (LAC). In this role, she leads a team of 500 staff and manages an annual budget of $50 million. . . . Prior to joining LAC, Buckland was head of research and scholarship at the University of Guelph Library, where she oversaw the collaborative development of a digital infrastructure to support the needs of research teams and new forms of scholarly communication progressively and sustainably.
The most common material types reported in 2023 were journals (89%), conference papers and proceedings (80%), theses and dissertations (75%), educational resources (66%), and monographs (60%). Under half of respondents (46%) reported publishing datasets. Other material types reported include gray literature, newsletters, multimedia, expansive digital publications, and databases. . . . Over 80% of respondents provide copyright support and DOI assignment. Over half provide metadata services (71%), author advisory services (66%), training (66%), ISSN registry (64%), hosting of supplemental content (60%), cataloging (56%), and analytics (55%). The decline in the number of library publishers providing digitization services holds steady with 49% of respondents in 2023 identifying it as one of their services.
Access the entire directory.
In 2022, the global COVID-19 pandemic entered its third year; political, economic and digital divides grew; and book challenges and bans surged across the country. ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked a record 1,269 book challenges, the highest number of demands to ban books reported since they began compiling data about censorship in libraries. But despite all these challenges, libraries thrived, pivoting to offer new and updated services to their communities. Adaptation and innovation shined in 2022, proving that there truly is "more to the story" at libraries.
Having survived the budget uncertainties following the Great Recession and during the COVID-19 pandemic, libraries are no strangers to the hard work, patience, and luck needed when it comes to budget planning and pushing publishers toward OA. But will libraries ever achieve the ultimate feat of bagging gold OA for all titles in all disciplines? Open access comes at a price; a gold sweep may not be possible as many institutions continue to struggle financially with the after-effects of the pandemic and lower enrollment figures.
Digital information security management (DISM) is considered an important tool to ensure the privacy and protection of data and resources in an electronic environment. The purpose of this research is to look into the applications of DISM policies in terms of practices and implementation in academic libraries. It also identifies the challenges faced by academic libraries in applying these DISM practices regarding policy. A systematic literature review was conducted to achieve the objectives of the study. . . . A few libraries have developed a mechanism to protect and secure users’ sensitive data from hackers, viruses, malware and social engineering. Findings indicated that both organisations and users trust libraries due to their strict privacy and data security policies. However, some academic libraries did not adopt and implement DISM policies in their organisations, even though they had written DISM policies.
The precise number of community college communities with access to an IR is unknown and certainly higher than ten, but uptake is low. As a result, the rich intellectual outputs generated at these institutions are not openly shared. Repositories provide community college communities with the ability to read content they would not otherwise have access to, but to fulfill the original purposes of open access to "share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich," it’s imperative that the faculty and students at community colleges are recognized as contributors to the scholarly communications landscape and empowered to disseminate their works, via repositories, to the larger knowledge ecosystem
The implications of this ruling are potentially profound, and, given the strong lean in the publisher’s favor, they are potentially troubling for libraries and the rights of those who seek to engage with content in our evermore digital and digitized world if the decision stands through the forthcoming appeals. For the significant amount of content that exists in print form and for which there is no publisher-sanctioned digital version available, that content has become effectively walled off from the digital world until it passes into the public domain—essentially for longer than anyone reading this blog is alive. Those who live in close proximity to and have access to world-class institutions with sizable print collections can get access to much of this content. For the vast majority of library users, this will not be the case. Their access will be significantly curtailed, but to paraphrase the ruling, this public interest is secondary to the interests of publishers in exercising their monopoly.
The ownership of MARC bibliographic data has been an issue between OCLC and other companies in the marketplace. Two lawsuits are discussed between OCLC and Clarivate and SkyRiver.
"At bottom, IA’s fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book," Koeltl wrote in a March 24 opinion granting the publisher plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying the Internet Archive’s cross-motion. "But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points in the other direction."
Here’s what’s at stake in this case: hundreds of libraries contributed millions of books to the Internet Archive for preservation in addition to those books we have purchased. Thousands of donors provided the funds to digitize them.
The publishers are now demanding that those millions of digitized books, not only be made inaccessible, but be destroyed.
This is horrendous. Let me say it again—the publishers are demanding that millions of digitized books be destroyed.
And if they succeed in destroying our books or even making many of them inaccessible, there will be a chilling effect on the hundreds of other libraries that lend digitized books as we do.
This could be the burning of the Library of Alexandria moment—millions of books from our community’s libraries mdash;gone.
Over the course of a 90-minute hearing on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, Koeltl appeared skeptical that there was sufficient basis in law to support the Internet Archive’s scanning and lending of print library books under a legally untested protocol known as controlled digital lending, and unconvinced that the case is fundamentally about the future of library lending, as Internet Archive attorneys have argued.
This Handbook overhauls current stereotypes about e-lending. The studies and investigations quoted in the Handbook demonstrate that e-lending in libraries is a formidable instrument for promoting e-books.Results may be short of sensational: when promoted by libraries, an individual title may see a 818% growth in e-book sales and 201% growth in print sales.
The number of e-lending transactions, measured in relation to the number of inhabitants, also shows that the market for e-loan transactions is now dramatically low and has to make great strides for the benefit of all actors in the e-book value chain.
The number of e-lending transactions, measured in relation to the number of inhabitants, also shows that the market for e-loan transactions is now dramatically low and has to make great strides for the benefit of all actors in the e-book value chain. It is now from 10 to 100 times lower than the number of book loans and in some cases, like in France, 400 times less.
Today, the Internet Archive (IA) defended its practice of digitizing books and lending those e-books for free to users of its Open Library. In 2020, four of the wealthiest book publishers sued IA, alleging this kind of digital lending was actually "willful digital piracy" causing them "massive harm." But IA’s lawyer, Joseph Gratz, argued that the Open Library’s digitization of physical books is fair use, and publishers have yet to show they’ve been harmed by IA’s digital lending.