The Collection Development Section, along with two cosponsors, the Technical Services Section and the Vision Science SIG, held a well-attended session today entitled:
Open Access in Action: Trends, Policies, and Institutional Activities in Support of Open Information
Managing a National Health Repository
Aoife Lawton and Padraig Manning
The first presenter, Aoife Lawton, described the creation of a national repository of health information from numerous health agencies in Ireland. The repository is called Lenus, the Irish Health Registry. There is a hosting agreement with Irish publishers. Ms. Lawton noted that the registry is heavily accessed and that there is a steady growth in the number of organizations and agencies that are choosing to use Lenus as their information repository.
Institutional Repository in Action
Sandra L. Bandy and David N. King
Sandra Bandy of Georgia Regents University described her research, which involved surveying libraries that are members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, as to whether they have institutional repositories for faculty research. The survey asked libraries whether there were contributions to repositories actively taking place, whether there were promotional activities to encourage contributions to repositories, and who was actively depositing the information — library staff, faculty, or both. The survey also asked about what training, if any, was provided about the repository (copyright and fair use, purpose of the repository, etc.). If education about the libraries’ repositories was provided, the survey asked about what methods were used (web pages, newsletters, social media, blogs, speakers, printed materials, etc.).
Researchers Share Perspectives on Open Access and Scholarly Publishing: Exploratory Pilot Study Using Qualitative Analysis of Interview Transcript
Margaret E. Moore, Susan Swogger, Lesley Copeland, Kathleen McGraw, Carol G. Jenkins, and Emily King
Margaret Moore spoke about a qualitative research project at the University of North Carolina which examined the impact of subsidized open access author fees. She noted that UNC first established a $20,000 open access fund for author fees in 2005. Ms. Moore’s study involved semi-structured interviews with twenty UNC authors. There were four categories of authors:
1. Authors who published in open access journals where the fees were paid from the OA fund.
2. Authors who published in BioMed Central with author fee discounts.
3. Authors who published in open access journals, but without any on-campus support.
4. Authors who published in “traditional” subscription-based journals.
The results of the interviews showed that some authors wanted to publish in a journal with the least cost for them; some just wanted to get their articles published quickly; some wanted a journal that was the best fit for their intended audience; and some researchers wanted to have their article published in a high prestige journal. She noted that having an article published in an open access journal was not a high priority for most of the authors. However, when surveyed about their general views on open access publishing, 55% had a positive view of open access, 30% had a mixed view and 15% had a negative view. Ms. Moore noted that some of the limits of the study are that the sample size was small, the researchers were all from one university, and that the questions were open-ended. She noted that one of the things learned was that the views of librarians and researchers/authors on the importance of publishing in an open access journal are very different.
An Open Access Policy for a Health Sciences University
Karen A. Butter and Anneliese S. Taylor
The last presentation was by Karen Butter, who described UCSF’s mandatory open access policy for publications by university researchers. University researchers/authors are generally required to publish in open access journals, but they can easily get waivers if the journals which accept their articles are not open access journals or if there are embargoes. She showed the simple form that researchers can file for a waiver or an embargo. Other major institutions that have similar mandatory open access policies are Harvard, Stanford, Duke, Emory, and Princeton.