View
414
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
No Such Thing as a Free LunchBalancing Locally Curated Open Access Collections and Their Costs
Allyson Rodriguez, Strategic Collections Librarian
University of North Texas
Roadmap
• The world of open access
• Our response
• What’s working
• Areas for improvement
• In the future
Which way: A confusing road sign. CC Image courtesy of oatsy40 on Flickr
World of OA
• From SPARC (in 2012)
• 9,745 Open Access journals
• 81,780 Open Access articles published in 2012
• In Directory of Open Access Books (in August 2016)
• 5,193 Open Access books
• From 159 Publishers
The Paradox of Choice• “…the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily
mean that more choice is better.”
• “…the growth of options and opportunities for choice has three, related, unfortunate effects. It means that
decisions require more effort. It makes mistakes more likely. It makes the psychological consequence of
mistakes more severe.”
- The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry Schwartz
The Response
• Curate and Vet
• Open Access Cataloging
• Associated costs
Indexed a CC Image by kyz on Flickr
Curate
• Does it apply to our institution?
• Did we get a request for it?
Sifting., a CC by image from the jof on Flickr
Vet• Collection Development Policy for Open Access and
Born-Digital Resources -http://www.library.unt.edu/policies/collection-development/oa-collection-development-policy
• Rubric
Resource Name: Date: Excellent Adequate Insufficient
Quality (Review Process)Stated peer or librarian review, prefer multiple reviewers (for journals, etc.)
Peer or librarian review is noted but not described in detail or the process is limited
No review processes are in place
Quality (Contact Information)Contact information is provide for
author/publisherContact information for author or publisher is general, outdated, or incomplete
No contact information is provided or is only available through contact form
Quality (Information)Information is logical and pertains to stated
subject of resource (look at titles, abstracts, any other information)
Most (not all) information is pertient to the subject Subjects are varied and seemingly incoherent
Authority (Publisher)Credentials of publisher are clearly and easily identifiable; Preferred domains: .edu, .gov, .org, or .net
Credentials of publisher are difficult to find, or do not match subject very closely; Publisher has positive reputation but not estabilshed longevity
Publisher credentials are not included or poor; Publisher has limited or no positive reputation;
Authority (Author)Credentials of author are clearly and easily identifiable; Credentials scholarly in nature and relevant to content
Credentials of author are difficult to find, or lacking in some way
Author credentials are not included or irrelevant
Objectivity (Information)
Information provided is open to verification and validation, process for this is stated;Informationprovides for multiple perspectives and/or addresses shortcomings of research
Information provided is open to verification and validation in a limited fashion; Information provides for some perspectives and may address shortcomings of research but not completely
Information provided is not open to verification or validation; Shortcomings of research are not addresssed or multiple perspectives not allowed
Objectivity (Advertising) No or minimal advertising Moderate advertising is presentHeavy advertising is present and interferes with
information
CurrencyInformation is recently published relative to the subject)
Information is generally published recentlyLarge gaps between publications; Information is out of date
Currency (Frequency)Publication dates are regular, clearly identified on
the resource, and adhered toLimited larger gaps between publications than those
stated on the resourcePublication frequency is not stated or adhered to
Functionality (Software and Registration)
No additional software is needed; No registration is needed to access the resource
Minimal, if any, additional software is needed; No registration is needed to access the resource
Extra software or plugins are necessary to view information; Registration is necessary
Functionality (Viewing Options)Resource has text-only viewing options, or options for optimal viewing
Limited display options available or text-only is not available
Limited or no display options available, limiting usability of information
Functionality (Links) All citations and links are correct and functional Most citations links are correct and functional; Multiple citations and links are incorrect or not functioning
What’s Working
• Some Automation
• Continued Ingestion
• Discoverable!
• Liaisons and Experts
Areas for Improvement - Metadata
• Automation
• Not always robust
• Time and effort
Areas for improvement - Tracking
• No good way to track usage
• Return on investment
• Initiatives
Areas for improvement - Initiatives
• Pay to support Open Access publication
• Records and metadataMetadata is a love note to the future, a CC by image by cea on Flickr
Going Forward – Local Ingesting
• Digital Library
• Local copy
• Tracking!
• Cost
Going Forward – Multiple Access Points
• Fully Open Access included in packages
• Extra access points
• Redundant
• Identification
Going Forward – Tracking
• Again
Wrap Up
Too much choice is badSo Curate your collections (even OA)
Evaluate everything
Some automation is ok
Metadata and tracking of OA are areas of need
Coming soon: OA in the Digital Library!
References
• Rodriguez, A. (2016). OA resource rubric. Retrieved from UNT Digital Library at http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc854098/?q=allyson%20rodriguez . Doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3491642.v2
• Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
• SPARC. (2016). Open access to scholarly and scientific research articles. Retrieved from http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-Open-Access-Factsheet.pdf