[GOAL] CFP for Focus Issue on Digital Scholarship
Hello All, We are seeking papers on innovative Digital Scholarship for a Focus Issue of the International Journal of Digital Libraries. The CFP is broad - covering research and scholarship in the sciences, humanities and arts. Please note that papers exploring new document models and open scholarly communication environments are of special interest. Guest Editors: Stephen Griffin University of Pittsburgh sgrif...@pitt.edu (contact) Stefan Gradmann University of Leuven International Journal of Digital Libraries Special Issue on Digital Scholarship Digital scholarship, or cyberscholarship - that based on data and computation - is radically reshaping knowledge discovery, creation, analysis, presentation and dissemination in many topical areas. Scientists are using vast amounts of data to explore galaxies, measure stresses on earth systems, create genetic profiles of living things and study the changing behaviors and mores of societies and individuals in a an increasing populated and fragile physical world steeped in networked digital technologies. Similarly, humanists are using new types of information objects, methodologies and tools to transform and expand their scholarly endeavors. Examples include the creation and use of digital representations of material culture by historians, introducing spatial and temporal indexed data into the study of literature and information visualizations to communicate the outcomes of traditional humanistic inquiry. The enabling environment for digital scholarship is a rapidly expanding global digital ecology composed of large and diverse datasets, richly annotated, globally linked and accessible to all using open source tools. Accompanying technology changes have been trends within scholarly communities toward rich informal dialogues, cross-disciplinary collaborations and equable sharing of research findings. Data-centered approaches to inquiry have now become a staple of research and scholarship in almost every disciplinary domain. Accompanying this have been cultural shifts in the scholarly community that challenge long-standing assumptions that underpin the structure of academic institutions and beg new models of scholarly communication. Network-centric models of scientific communication that capture a comprehensive record of scholarly workflows are now seen by many as a necessary condition for accurate and complete reporting of scholarly work. Much of the seminal work in developing the information environments and resources that support digital scholarship can be linked directly to digital libraries research – past and present. Pioneering digital libraries research illuminated essential core information architectures and environments and inspired a generation of researchers to look beyond the confines of their own discipline and often partner with others to pursue interdisciplinary projects – many of which captured national attention and captivated the general public with their brilliance. This special issue will solicit high quality papers that demonstrate exceptional achievements in digital scholarship, including but not limited to: • scholarly work that demonstrates innovation in the creation and use of complex information objects and tools to advance domain scholarship • domain research that exemplifies creative and innovative data-intensive research in the formal, natural, social sciences and the humanities and arts • new applications, tools and services that expand the scope and means for interdisciplinary digital scholarship • data repositories and infrastructure projects of exceptional quality and value that illustrate how community-based efforts can serve global constituencies • models for leveraging and expanding web-based infrastructure for scholars • document models that support multiple information types, update, annotation, executable objects, linkages, rapid integration and staged release of document components • scholarly communication models that capture a comprehensive record of research and provide new means of presentation, dissemination and reuse Important Dates November 30, 2013 Paper Submission deadline March 1, 2014 First notification May 1, 2014 Revision submission July 1, 2014Second notification September 1, 2014 Final version submission Guest Editors Stephen M. Griffin, University of Pittsburgh (contact person) Stefan Gradmann, University of Leuven Editorial Board: Michael Lesk, Rutgers University Elizabeth Lyon, University of Bath, UKOLN William Arms, Cornell Christine Borgman, University of California, Los Angeles (tentative yes) Tom Moritz, Consultant Michael Buckland, University of California, Berkeley Paper
[GOAL] Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?
When last July Research Councils UK (RCUK) announced its new Open Access (OA) policy it sparked considerable controversy, not least because the policy required researchers to prefer Gold OA (OA publishing) over Green OA (self-archiving). The controversy was such that earlier this year the House of Lords Science Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the implementation of the policy and the subsequent report was highly critical of RCUK. As a result of the criticism, RCUK published two clarifications. Amongst other things, this has seen Green OA reinstated as a viable alternative to Gold. At the same time, however, RCUK extended the permissible maximum embargo before papers can be self-archived from 12 to 24 months. OA advocates - who maintain that a six-month embargo is entirely adequate - responded by arguing that this would simply encourage publishers who did not have an embargo to introduce one, and those that did have one to lengthen it. As a result, they added, many research papers would be kept behind publishers' paywalls unnecessarily. It has begun to appear that these warnings may have been right. Evidence that publishers have indeed begun to respond to RCUK's policy in this way was presented during a second inquiry into OA - this time by the House of Commons Business, Innovation Skills (BIS) Committee. The Committee cited the case of a UK publisher who recently introduced a 24-month embargo where previously it did not have one. The publisher was not named, but it turns out to be a UK-based company called Emerald. Why did Emerald decide that an embargo is now necessary where previously it was not? Why do the details of the embargo on Emerald's web site differ from the details sent to the publisher's journal editors? And what does Emerald's decision to introduce a two-year embargo presage for the development of Open Access? To my surprise, obtaining answers to the first two questions proved more difficult than I had anticipated. More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.h tml ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?
Both the perverse effects of the UK's Finch/RCUK policyhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=finch+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=kga_UeyPLqLn0wHN3YDYCwved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQfp=e842c107f9c204e7biw=1050bih=658 and their antidote are as simple to describe and understand as they were to predict: *The Perverse Effects of the Finch/RCUK Policy:* Besides being eager to cash in on the double-paid (subscription fees + Gold OA fees), double-dipped over-priced hybrid Gold bonanza that Finch/RCUK has foolishly dangled before their eyes, publishers like Emerald are also trying to hedge their bets and clinch the deal by adopting or extending Green OA embargoes to try to force authors to pick and pay for the hybrid Gold option instead of picking cost-free Green. *The Antidote to the Perverse Effects of the Finch/RCUK Policy:* To remedy this, both funders and institutions need merely (1) distinguish deposit-date from the date that access to the deposit is made OA, (2) mandate immediate-deposit, and (3) implement the repository's facilitated eprint request Buttonhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=button+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=OQC_UeHwKOy40QGahIGwAwved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQfp=e842c107f9c204e7biw=1261bih=790 to tide over user needs during any OA embargo. All funders and institutions can and should adopt the immediate-deposit mandate immediately. Together with the Button it moots embargoes (and once widely adopted, will ensure emargoes' inevitable and deserved demise). And as an insurance policy (and a fitting one, to counterbalance publishers' insurance policy of prolonging Green embargoes to try to force authors to pay for hybrid Gold) funders and institutions should (4) designate date-stamped immediate-deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting published papers for annual performance review (e.g., the Liège policy http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/) or for national research assessment (as HEFCE has proposed for REF http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/ ). As to the page that Emerald has borrowed from Elsevierhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html, consisting of pseudo-legal double-talkhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=elsevier+double-talk+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=6v2-UbGZJLaz4AOb04C4Dwved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmgfp=e842c107f9c204e7biw=1261bih=790 implying that *you may deposit immediately if you needn't, but not if you must* That is pure FUD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt and can and should be completely ignored. (Any author foolish enough to be taken in by such double-talk deserves all the needless usage and impact losses they will get!) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Richard Poynder richard.poyn...@btinternet.com wrote: When last July Research Councils UK (RCUK) announced its new Open Access (OA) policy it sparked considerable controversy, not least because the policy required researchers to “prefer” Gold OA (OA publishing) over Green OA (self-archiving). The controversy was such that earlier this year the House of Lords Science Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the implementation of the policy and the subsequent report was highly critical of RCUK. ** ** As a result of the criticism, RCUK published two clarifications. Amongst other things, this has seen Green OA reinstated as a viable alternative to Gold. At the same time, however, RCUK extended the permissible maximum embargo before papers can be self-archived from 12 to 24 months. OA advocates — who maintain that a six-month embargo is entirely adequate — responded by arguing that this would simply encourage publishers who did not have an embargo to introduce one, and those that did have one to lengthen it. As a result, they added, many research papers would be kept behind publishers’ paywalls unnecessarily. ** ** It has begun to appear that these warnings may have been right. Evidence that publishers have indeed begun to respond to RCUK’s policy in this way was presented during a second inquiry into OA — this time by the House of Commons Business, Innovation Skills (BIS) Committee. The Committee cited the case of a UK publisher who recently introduced a 24-month embargo where previously it did not have one. The
[GOAL] Re: G8 Science Ministers endorse open access
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 16:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: [snip] In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to provide any monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only monitors how Gold money is spent. Finch/RCUK also backed down on monitoring OA embargoes (which is bad, but not as bad as not monitoring and ensuring immediate deposit.) By Finch/RCUK do you mean the current RCUK guidance, because section 3.14 of: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf Is all about monitoring for gold *and green* (including embargoes)? measure the impact of Open Access across the landscape including use of both immediate publishing (‘Gold’) and the use of repositories(‘Green’), and For articles which are not made immediately open access ... a statement of the length of the embargo period [will be required] I spent last Friday at a workshop of UK EPrints users that was all about how we're going to report open access compliance to RCUK. -- All the best, Tim signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: G8 Science Ministers endorse open access
On 2013-06-17, at 9:34 AM, Tim Brody t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: RCUK guidance [in] section3.14 of: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf Is all about monitoring for gold *and green* (including embargoes)? measure the impact of Open Access across the landscape including use of both immediate publishing (‘Gold’) and the use of repositories(‘Green’), and For articles which are not made immediately open access ... a statement of the length of the embargo period [will be required] I spent last Friday at a workshop of UK EPrints users that was all about how we're going to report open access compliance to RCUK. Well it would be splendid if RCUK monitored Green as it monitors Gold! What I meant was monitoring Green *compliance* (i.e., making sure the papers are deposited), just as the money spent on Gold is being monitored. I don't think a solemn statement of the intention to deposit some day -- especially since RCUK have announced that they will not be enforcing embargo lengths for the indeterminate nonce -- is a compliance mechanism. The remedy will come from HEFCE, if their proposed immediate-deposit mandate is adopted, for eligibility for REF: It is a monitoring mechanism that ensures date-stamped immediate-deposit that is needed. Let us hope that is the compliance mechanism RCUK, in collaboration with the funded institutions, will adopt. SH ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM, didier.pelap...@inserm.fr wrote: Springer, which defined itself some months ago as a green publisher in a advertisement meeting to which they invited us (they call that information meeting) and did not ask any embargo for institutional open repositories (there was only an embargo for the repositories of funders with a mandate), now changed its policy (they call that a new wording) with a 12-month embargo for all Open repositories. It is now displayed in Sherpa/Romeo. It was said that this new policy was settled in reaction to the US, Europe and RCUK policy. I figured out that this would make some buzz, but for the moment I did not see any reaction. Did you hear from one? No buzz, because the change is inconsequential: Authors may self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later. http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-0 *(1) There is no difference between the authors' own websites and and their own institution's repository. * Authors' websites are sectors of their own institution's diskspace, and their institutional repository is a sector of their own institution's diskspace. Way back in 2003 U. Southampton had already laid this nonsensical pseudo-legal distinction to rest pre-emptively by formally declaring their authors' sector of their institutional repository their personal website: 3e. Copyright agreements may state that eprints can be archived on your personal homepage. As far as publishers are concerned, the EPrint Archive is a part of the Department's infrastructure for your personal homepage. http://roarmap.eprints.org/1/ *(2) As to institution-external OA repositories, many green publishers try to forbid them, but this too is futile nonsense. They can simply link to the full-text in the institutional repository. * Indeed this has always been the main reason I have been strongly advocating for years that self-archiving mandates should always stipulate institutional deposithttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=institutional+central+deposit+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=jHe_UbP0CKXH0gH1m4HgDwved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQfp=e842c107f9c204e7biw=1136bih=788rather than institution-external deposit. (Springer or any publisher has delusions, however, if they think any of their pseudo-legal double-talk can get physicists who have been self-archiving directly in Arxiv for over two decades to change their ways!) *(3) But, yes, Finch/RCUK's persistence in its foolish, thoughtless and heedless policy is indeed having its perverse consequences, exactly as predictedhttp://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html, in the form of more and more of this formalistic FUD from publishers regarding Green OA embargoes.* Fortunately, HEFCE/REFhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgsclient=psy-abq=hefce+ref+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Foq=hefce+ref+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fgs_l=serp.3...968901.970989.1.971714.9.9.0.0.0.1.173.950.5j4.9.0...0.0...1c.1.17.psy-ab.CCrY4O5668opbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQfp=e842c107f9c204e7biw=1136bih=788has taken heed. If their proposed immediate-(institutional)-deposit mandate is adopted, not only is all this publisher FUD mooted, but it increases the likelihood that other OA mandates. too, will be upgraded to HEFCE's date-stamped immediate-deposit as the mechanism for submitting articles to institutional research performance review or national research assessment. If there's to be buzz, let the facts and contingencies at least be got straight! Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
