Upskilling in scholarly communication practices

As the research landscape continues to change with new technologies, advances in data management and new means, expectations and polices surrounding scholarly communication, the role of the Library and Librarian in supporting research is shifting. At the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the Library has made a positive impact on the scholarly communication practices of QUT researchers in the last decade in several ways: � 1. A university-wide deposit mandate on self-archiving was introduced in 2003. It states that QUT authors must place the author’s accepted manuscript version of refereed research articles and conference papers in the digital repository QUT ePrints. 2. Liaison Librarians remind their researchers to self-deposit their accepted manuscript versions of peer-reviewed research outputs into QUT ePrints, and provide training and support when needed. 3. The Library pays author publication fees for true gold road open access publishers including: BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, Hindawi Press. Liaison Librarians actively assist researchers in the gold road publishing process.� Liaison Librarians play a key role in educating their researchers on university policy and the latest advances in scholarly communication. However, their knowledge and skills related to scholarly communication practices have largely been learnt on the job or self-taught. This poster presents the results of a survey where QUT Liaison Librarians rated their skills in various practices related to eResearch, including scholarly communication.

Integrating a sustainable academic career around scholarly learning and teaching activities

To be scholarly in learning and teaching is rigorous academic work. It demands: currency and command of both discipline subject matter and educational theory; inquiring, methodical, and reflective approaches; the collection, evaluation and documentation of evidence of learning and teaching efficacy; and, optimally, entails participation in and communication among a community of teaching professionals. This chapter examines the author’s own practice in this regard to explicate the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of scholarly and scholarship approaches, as much as the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of that endeavour. In doing so, this meta‐analysis is made ‘community property’, in the same way that Shulman (1993: 6) exhorted we ‘change the status of teaching from private to community property’ so that teaching might be more greatly valued in the academy.

Open Access and Scholarly Books: Workshop Report, 19 June 2013

On 19 June 2013 Knowledge Unlatched and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School jointly convened a one-day workshop titled Open Access and Scholarly Books in Cambridge, MA. The workshop brought together a group of 21 invited publishers, librarians, academics and Open Access innovators to discuss the challenge of making scholarly books Open Access. This report captures discussions that took place on the day.

Knowledge unlatched : enabling open access for scholarly books

Although digital technology has made it possible for many more people to access content at no extra cost, fewer people than ever before are able to read the books written by university-based researchers. This workshop explores the role that open access licenses and collective action might play in reviving the scholarly monograph: a specialised area of academic publishing that has seen sales decline by more than 90 per cent over the past three decades. It also introduces Knowledge Unlatched an ambitious attempt to create an internationally coordinated, sustainable route to open access for scholarly books. Knowledge Unlatched is now in its pilot phase.

Open access for scholarly books : policy and practice

Fierce debates have characterised 2013 as the implications of government mandates for open access have been debated and pathways for implementation worked out. There is no doubt that journals will move to a mix of gold and green and there will be an unsettled relationship between the two. But what of books? Is it conceivable that in those subjects, such as in the humanities and social sciences, where something longer than the journal article is still the preferred form of scholarly communications that these will stay closed? Will it be acceptable to have some publicly funded research made available only in closed book form (regardless of whether print or digital) while other subjects where articles are favoured go open access? Frances Pinter is in the middle of these debates, having founded Knowledge Unlatched (see www.knowledgeunlatched.org). KU is a global library consortium enabling open access books. Knowledge Unlatched is helping libraries to work together for a sustainable open future for specialist academic books. Its vision is a healthy market that includes free access for end users. In this session she will review all the different models that are being experimented with around the world. These include author-side payments, institutional subsidies, research funding body approaches etc. She will compare and contrast these models with those that are already in place for journal articles. She will also review the policy landscape and report on how open access scholarly books are faring to date Frances Pinter, Founder, Knowledge Unlatched, UK

Open access and scholarly books : Australian perspectives

This three-hour workshop tackles the crucial question of whether globally coordinated, market based approaches to funding open access monographs can support the unique needs of Australian research communities. The workshop takes place in the context of the release in August 2013 of the Book Industry Collaborative Council (BICC) report and especially the recommendations included in the chapter on scholarly book publishing in the humanities and social sciences. This workshop, with expert speakers from the BICC Committee and from across the scholarly publishing industry, will discuss the policy issues most likely to ensure that Australian scholarly communities and audiences are best served in an era of digital technology and globalisation. Australia must think globally and support developments that enhance the accessibility of publicly-funded research. Speakers will outline recent developments in scholarly monograph publishing including new Open Access initiatives and developments. Knowledge Unlatched, is one example of an attempt to create an internationally coordinated, market-based route to open access for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) monographs. Knowledge Unlatched, a not-for-profit London-based company is piloting a global library consortium approach to funding open access monographs and released its pilot program in early October with 28 titles from 13 publishers. The workshop invites discussion and debate from librarians, publishers, researchers and research funders on the role of international coordination and markets in securing a more open future for Australian HASS scholarship.

Knowledge unlatched : open access and scholarly books - workshop report

On 19 June 2013 Knowledge Unlatched and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School jointly convened a one-day workshop titled Open Access and Scholarly Books in Cambridge, MA. The workshop brought together a group of 21 invited publishers, librarians, academics and Open Access innovators to discuss the challenge of making scholarly books Open Access. This report captures discussions that took place on the day.

Broadening the focus : the case for lifestyle journalism as a field of scholarly inquiry

This introduction to the special issue outlines the case for an increased focus on studying lifestyle journalism, an area of journalism which, despite its rapid rise over recent decades, has not received much attention from scholars in journalism studies. Criticised for being antithetical to public interest and watchdog notions of journalism, lifestyle journalism is still ridiculed by some as being unworthy of being associated with the term journalism. However, in outlining the field's development and a critique of definitions of journalism, this paper argues that there are a number of good reasons for broadening the focus. In fact, lifestyle journalism?here defined as a distinct journalistic field that primarily addresses its audiences as consumers, providing them with factual information and advice, often in entertaining ways, about goods and services they can use in their daily lives?has much to offer for scholarly inquiry and is of increasing relevance for society.

Knowledge unlatched: A global library consortium model for funding open access scholarly books: Full report on the Proof of Concept Pilot 2014

This special issue of Cultural Science Journal is devoted to the report of a groundbreaking experiment in re-coordinating global markets for specialist scholarly books and enabling the knowledge commons: the Knowledge Unlatched proof-of-concept pilot. The pilot took place between January 2012 and September 2014. It involved libraries, publishers, authors, readers and research funders in the process of developing and testing a global library consortium model for supporting Open Access books. The experiment established that authors, librarians, publishers and research funding agencies can work together in powerful new ways to enable open access; that doing so is cost effective; and that a global library consortium model has the potential dramatically to widen access to the knowledge and ideas contained in book-length scholarly works.

External influence as an indicator of scholarly importance

Although the external influence of scholars has usually been approximated by publication and citation count, the array of scholarly activities is far more extensive. Today, new technologies, in particular Internet search engines, allow more accurate measurement of scholars' influence on societal discourse. Hence, in this article, we analyse the relation between the internal and external influence of 723 top economists using the number of pages indexed by Google and Bing as a measure of external influence. We not only identify a small association between these scholars’ internal and external influence but also a correlation between internal influence, as captured by receipt of such major academic awards as the Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark Medal, and the external prominence of the top 100 researchers (JEL Code: A11, A13, Z18).

The Saintly Madman : A Study of the Scholarly Reception History of Buile Shuibhne

This study examines the scholarly reception history of an early Irish text, Buile Shuibhne (The Frenzy of Suibhne), by focusing on the various theoretical and methodological presuppositions which have determined the scholars’ understanding of the text’s religious allegorical significance in the course of the 20th century. The reception-oriented inquiry takes the intersubjective aspect of literary interpretation as the basis for accentuating the importance of communally shared presumptions and reading strategies in the explication of interpretive variety. The materials of the study have been divided into four frameworks of interpretation: historical, pre-Christian, Christian and anthropological. This heuristic division does not denote mutually exclusive paradigms, but rather refers to perceived similarities within each group regarding the questions posed, and the evidence adduced, in textual analysis. The historical framework concentrates on the issues of the origins of the tale and the possible historicity of its main protagonist. The pre-Christian framework covers the theories of the shamanic, Indo-European and Celtic elements in the text, whereas the Christian framework includes readings emphasising the biblical, monastic and ascetic aspects of the tale. The anthropological framework in turn focuses on the parallels drawn between the narrative and the universal structure of the rites of passage. In addition to the examination of these four frameworks, the study also links the question of methodology with wider issues of authorship and textual integrity, and critically reconsiders the manner in which J.G. O'Keeffe's 1913 edition of the text has been reified in previous scholarship as a representation of a 12th century authorial original. The overall objective of the present case-study is to relate theoretical conceptions of literary theory, comparative religion and historiography to the study of early Irish narrative material by considering the communal and institutional dimension of meaning-making, and the implications of comparative methodology for historical research. In this aim, the prevailing methodological presuppositions informing the scholarly discourse on Buile Shuibhne are set against the wider context of Celtic Studies scholarship, in order to draw attention to the need to critically reflect upon the operations of knowledge production in future research.

Knowledge unlatched : A global library consortium model for funding Open Access scholarly books

Specialist scholarly books, including monographs, allow researchers to present their work, pose questions and to test and extend areas of theory through long-form writing. In spite of the fact that research communities all over the world value monographs and depend heavily on them as a requirement of tenure and promotion in many disciplines, sales of this kind of book are in free fall, with some estimates suggesting declines of as much as 90% over twenty years (Willinsky 2006). Cashstrapped monograph publishers have found themselves caught in a negative cycle of increasing prices and falling sales, with few resources left to support experimentation, business model innovation or engagement with digital technology and Open Access (OA). This chapter considers an important attempt to tackle failing markets for scholarly monographs, and to enable the wider adoption of OA licenses for book-length works: the 2012 – 2014 Knowledge Unlatched pilot. Knowledge Unlatched is a bold attempt to reconfigure the market for specialist scholarly books: moving it beyond the sale of ‘content’ towards a model that supports the services valued by scholarly and wider communities in the context of digital possibility. Its success has powerful implications for the way we understand copyright’s role in the creative industries, and the potential for established institutions and infrastructure to support the open and networked dynamics of a digital age.

Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access

The Internet has made possible the cost-effective dissemination of scientific journals in the form of electronic versions, usually in parallel with the printed versions. At the same time the electronic medium also makes possible totally new open access (OA) distribution models, funded by author charges, sponsorship, advertising, voluntary work, etc., where the end product is free in full text to the readers. Although more than 2,000 new OA journals have been founded in the last 15 years, the uptake of open access has been rather slow, with currently around 5% of all peer-reviewed articles published in OA journals. The slow growth can to a large extent be explained by the fact that open access has predominantly emerged via newly founded journals and startup publishers. Established journals and publishers have not had strong enough incentives to change their business models, and the commercial risks in doing so have been high. In this paper we outline and discuss two different scenarios for how scholarly publishers could change their operating model to open access. The first is based on an instantaneous change and the second on a gradual change. We propose a way to manage the gradual change by bundling traditional “big deal” licenses and author charges for opening access to individual articles.

Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access

The Internet has made possible the cost-effective dissemination of scientific journals in the form of electronic versions, usually in parallel with the printed versions. At the same time the electronic medium also makes possible totally new open access (OA) distribution models, funded by author charges, sponsorship, advertising, voluntary work, etc., where the end product is free in full text to the readers. Although more than 2,000 new OA journals have been founded in the last 15 years, the uptake of open access has been rather slow, with currently around 5% of all peer-reviewed articles published in OA journals. The slow growth can to a large extent be explained by the fact that open access has predominantly emerged via newly founded journals and startup publishers. Established journals and publishers have not had strong enough incentives to change their business models, and the commercial risks in doing so have been high. In this paper we outline and discuss two different scenarios for how scholarly publishers could change their operating model to open access. The first is based on an instantaneous change and the second on a gradual change. We propose a way to manage the gradual change by bundling traditional “big deal” licenses and author charges for opening access to individual articles.