Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028196286 = product of:
  0.042294428 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
    0.009989405 = product of:
      0.029968213 = sum of:
        0.029968213 = weight(_text_:29 in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029968213 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As open access (OA) publication of research outputs becomes increasingly common and is mandated by institutions and research funders, it is important to understand different aspects of the costs involved. This paper provides an early review of administrative costs incurred by universities in making research outputs OA, either via publication in journals ("Gold" OA), involving payment of article-processing charges (APCs), or via deposit in repositories ("Green" OA). Using data from 29 UK institutions, it finds that the administrative time, as well as the cost incurred by universities, to make an article OA using the Gold route is over 2.5 times higher than Green. Costs are then modeled at a national level using recent UK policy initiatives from Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Councils' Research Excellence Framework as case studies. The study also demonstrates that the costs of complying with research funders' OA policies are considerably higher than where an OA publication is left entirely to authors' discretion. Key target areas for future efficiencies in the business processes are identified and potential cost savings calculated. The analysis is designed to inform ongoing policy development at the institutional and national levels.

0.021536682 = product of:
  0.06461004 = sum of:
    0.06461004 = weight(_text_:development in 5474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06461004 = score(doc=5474,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.40352166 = fieldWeight in 5474, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5474)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose A major development in academic libraries in the last decade has been recognition of the need to support research data management (RDM). The purpose of this paper is to capture how library research data services (RDS) have developed and to assess the impact of this on the nature of academic libraries. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire responses from libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and USA from 2018 are compared to a previous data set from 2014. Findings The evidence supports a picture of the spread of RDS, especially advisory ones. However, future ambitions do not seem to have seen much evolution. There is limited evidence of organisational change and skills shortages remain. Most service development can be explained as the extension of traditional library services to research data. Yet there remains the potential for transformational impacts, when combined with the demands implied by other new services such as around text and data mining, bibliometrics and artificial intelligence. A revised maturity model is presented that summarises typical stages of development of services, structures and skills. Research limitations/implications The research models show how RDS are developing. It also reflects on the extent to which RDM represents a transformation of the role of academic libraries. Practical implications Practitioners working in the RDM arena can benchmark their current practices and future plans against wider patterns. Originality/value The study offers a clear picture of the evolution of research data services internationally and proposes a maturity model to capture typical stages of development. It contributes to the wider discussion of how the nature of academic libraries are changing.

0.018651312 = product of:
  0.055953935 = sum of:
    0.055953935 = weight(_text_:development in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055953935 = score(doc=1542,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34946 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.

0.018651312 = product of:
  0.055953935 = sum of:
    0.055953935 = weight(_text_:development in 3791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055953935 = score(doc=3791,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34946 = fieldWeight in 3791, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3791)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports an international study of research data management (RDM) activities, services, and capabilities in higher education libraries. It presents the results of a survey covering higher education libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK. The results indicate that libraries have provided leadership in RDM, particularly in advocacy and policy development. Service development is still limited, focused especially on advisory and consultancy services (such as data management planning support and data-related training), rather than technical services (such as provision of a data catalog, and curation of active data). Data curation skills development is underway in libraries, but skills and capabilities are not consistently in place and remain a concern. Other major challenges include resourcing, working with other support services, and achieving "buy in" from researchers and senior managers. Results are compared with previous studies in order to assess trends and relative maturity levels. The range of RDM activities explored in this study are positioned on a "landscape maturity model," which reflects current and planned research data services and practice in academic libraries, representing a "snapshot" of current developments and a baseline for future research.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.003299848 = product of:
  0.009899544 = sum of:
    0.009899544 = product of:
      0.029698629 = sum of:
        0.029698629 = weight(_text_:22 in 2551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029698629 = score(doc=2551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2551, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2551)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22