Welcome to E-resourceful

E-resourceful is a blog containing news, resource updates, and general discussion on matters relating to the management of e-resources of all types.  As a professional working in this area for fifteen years, I have seen many changes over this time and this blog will attempt to both reflect on those and gather information from a variety of sources to publicize material, enhance discussions on listservs, and present items of news and interest to those working within this fast-changing area.

I welcome your participation and thank you for taking the time to visit this blog.

The Serials Librarian, T&F, and Open Access

Before I launch into the meat of this post, I would like to confirm a few things.

Yes, I am currently the co-editor-in-chief of the journal The Serials Librarian.

Yes, this journal is published by Taylor and Francis and is part of the same group of journals in Library & Information Science as the title Journal of Library Administration which has been mentioned in the blogosphere lately.

Yes, Taylor and Francis are a Green OA publisher and their LIS titles have benefitted since 1 November 2011 from a clause allowing the author to make either their original manuscript or the accepted version of their manuscript available in institutional repositories and similar services.

The relevant bit from the Taylor & Francis Author Services LIS Rights:

“Copyright is retained by the author, who grants a license to Taylor & Francis to publish the version of Scholarly Record, but who remains copyright holder and is free to post versions of the Article – Author’s Original Manuscript (preprint) and Author’s Accepted Manuscript (postprint) – at any time, without embargo, with a link to the Version of Scholarly Record.”

Please note that the wording states ‘at any time’.  Authors do not have to wait for the Version of Scholarly Record (i.e. the final typeset page with all the links and what we used to call ‘bells and whistles’) to appear – simply to add a link to it when it does appear.

Taylor and Francis have since launched an optional Gold OA model which seems to have caused all the fuss, assuming that the Green route pilot has been dropped in favour of only allowing authors permission to share their articles if they pay the publisher for the privilege.  In fact the Gold OA option, clocking in at around $3,000 per article, is set up to allow the Version of Scholarly Record to be made available on the informa website for free.

The mass resignation of the editor-in-chief and the editorial board of Journal of Library Administration so early in its tenure is a matter for great regret, I feel, but the blog and listserv posts on the topic which do not present the whole picture, are potentially more damaging.  We have had curt emails from prospective authors who ‘do not wish to post in a closed access journal’ without enquiring further.

I fully support Open Access initatives of whatever form, Green, Gold, or Hybrid.  OA is still a relatively new way of publishing and the recent threatened lawsuits regarding possible ‘predatory’ publishers, ie. those which simply exist to make money and produce any content offered, means the area remains an emotive subject for some.

However, attacking commercial publishers who need to make their money somewhere, and which do provide quality content which has been assessed, peer reviewed, and copy edited, purely because their content is not ‘free’ seems counter-productive.  I do understand all the arguments around the area of scholarly communication and have previously commented on the RCUK issues around OA and Open Access and the Big Deals.

Obviously, as an editor on a journal in the LIS programme I am concerned that misinformation and the actions of the editor and board of JLA might cause us some damage – I hope that this blog post has done something to redress the balance.

I stress that this post is my personal view, and does not necessarily represent that of my co-editor, or of NASIG, who are associated with The Serials Librarian.  Nor has this post been vetted by my colleagues at Taylor & Francis, with this being my personal blog.

Project planning …

Although I have managed a number of small scale projects, and contributed to larger ones, I haven’t done the full create-plan-delegate-assess risks-evaluate under a formal setting as yet, as the project manager.

Until now.  I’m setting myself this very goal as something I can achieve over the next few months.

Number one on the list islooking at how to feed our current e-resource management processes into our customer service, by pushing information which is relevant and useful out to our staff and students.  I’m a great believer in presenting a service which allows the customer to be self-sufficient for the future, and this is very important with the growing number of students off-site.  We tend to remember those we see in our physical spaces and tailor services to them to some degree, but virtual collections require a different focus and skill, no less important.  We need to put ourselves in their shoes, and pay attention to their needs and requirements.

If we are committing long-term (beyond 2 years) to our current systems we must develop them for our users.  Starting small.  Clauses from licence agreements pushed out to user groups.  Aims and objectives thereof.  Risks associated with the technology, the users, staff working within the project.  Look a long way ahead at your deliverables.  Finally, did you meet your objectives.  Did something come up that you hadn’t planned for?  (If it did, what would you do differently next time to ensure this didn’t happen?).

For The Serials Librarian, working with a co-editor I have never met, and authors and columnists I need to communicate with virtually, has been challenging.  For our first two years I haven’t followed a formal plan beyond ‘here are our deadlines for the year’, but this year I plan to be much more focused.  It isn’t just about winging it with a ‘Plan B’ but having ideas in reserve which would help us through a dry patch, for example.  It is about spotting trends and ensuring we have something to say on them.

In this way when I next prepare for a job interview or internal discussion I can show concrete examples of recent ways I have shown how to plan, deliver and review a successful project.   Customer focused projects are the future, not just in my area of specialism or within my team (collections, technical services, information resources, call it what you will).  If we don’t offer an excellent service and support in the key areas which matter to our customer group (students, academics, visitors, etc) then we might as well shut up shop and go home.  It’s about looking forward, about getting out from behind those desks, and planning the next generation of service provision.

The back-room librarian: pros and cons

Recent views of other universities plus personal experience across three I have worked in has led me to reflect today on what might be termed ‘the back-room librarian’, i.e. someone whose role does not involve any front-line interaction with customers in the sense of transactions or enquiries face to face.

I’ve always regarded the ‘back-room’ people as essential to the service, but with a potential to be somewhat remote from what is going on day to day.  However, as long as there are strategies in place to counter any such feelings of isolation, it should not be a problem and indeed, frees up valuable time within areas of high impact to the service where specialisms can be developed.  These specialisms can then feed into front-line services in an effective manner.

Example 1: A single site university, mid-sized.  Library assistants work half their time in their specialist departments, and half on the issue desk.  Librarians work regular shifts on the enquiry desk.  There are also dedicated customer services staff as supervisors, but everyone takes part in basic customer service work (reservations, overdues, fines).  Everyone works a late night one day a week.  The service does not open at weekends.  Some staff also staff a dedicated photocopying and binding section.  IT have their own helpdesk and shop.

Pros:  Students have access to IT professionals from point of arrival.  Staff get to know stock and customers well.  Specialist equipment is supported within a seperate section.  Rotas are fairly static so teams get to know each other well.

Cons: Late nights mean staffing problems when people are on leave or ill.  No flexibility available on working hours (for e.g. to have more people available at the busiest times of the day).  Specialist sections sometimes fail to meet KPIs, keep the stock moving, etc., as their time working in that area is limited.  Little or no interaction with IT even though the service is converged.

Example 2: A multi-site university, large.  Dedicated customer service staff work on the issue desks and in the enquiry office.  Specialists are available for drop-ins and/or to come out to the helpdesk to provide second-line support.  All ‘back-room’ staff are involved in cross-team groups and projects, and in teaching or assisting with teaching.  They also provide an enquiry and troubleshooting service by email and telephone within office hours.  Every member of staff works one evening to 7pm per month, which does not affect service provision as this time is generally taken as flexitime at a later agreed date.  IT have their own helpdesk and drop-in.

Pros:  Staff not on helpdesks can concentrate on their own specialisms in order to improve the service and be more efficient.  A dedicated enquiry service with relevant training can be a definite bonus to staff and students alike.  Students have access to generous IT support face-to-face.  Staffing hours can be very flexible amongst teams not doing front-line work.  Recruitment can be targeted to detailed job specs.

Cons:  Staff not on helpdesks or seeing students day-to-day could feel isolated from what is going on within the institution.  Teams could become specialists silos unable to see the bigger picture.  There may be issues relating to adequate communication. Progression opportunities may be restricted unless job shadowing is made available.

Example 3: A multi-site university, mid-sized.  Everyone works regular shifts on the helpdesks, which are described as ‘information points’, with some staff also staffing the enquiry desks.  The information points cover 1st line IT support, student service queries, equipment loan, and printing and photocopy support.  Although some staff are based in customer services doing dedicated work relating to invoicing, interloans, etc., all other staff have their own area of specialism.

Pros:  All staff can feel engaged with the student experience.  There are good opportunities for progression and gaining new skills.  Staff can develop more flexibility and time management skills.  Students have one point of call where they can expect a professional resolution to basic queries, and effective referral for complex ones.

Cons:  Staff can feel overloaded and under pressure as they need to have knowledge of every area of work.  Back-room tasks can suffer even if they are important to supporting learning, teaching, and research, because of time constraints and lack of ability to concentrate for a long period of time on a complex task or clearing backlogs.  Recruitment might focus more on front-line needs and lose potentially valuable specialists.

My conclusion?  All systems are perfectly workable, but some may lead to more pressure than others, or pressure of a different kind.  We are serving a physical audience who come into our library buildings as well as a large virtual audience who may never visit us – both have high expectations in terms of the service, stock, and resourcing.  Whichever path we choose, we must not let them down, and we must nurture, value, respect and develop both our front-line and back-room staff, as well as those who are both.

Open Access and the ‘big deals’

With the publication of the Finch report, advocating Gold OA and (in some eyes) downgrading the need to mandate Green OA so that authors do not see their research locked into closed access journals, the profile of ‘Open Access’ has never been higher.

RCUK, the UK’s research funding councils, have long supported Green OA as the way forward in sharing research.  Indeed, they now stipulate that research wholly or partially funded by their members must be submitted to journals which are compliant with RCUK policy (no embargo on submitting to a repository, no ‘pay to publish’ option).

As a journal editor, for Taylor and Francis, I have seen our submissions fall because of T&F’s stated policy on Green OA (although there is a generous exemption for titles which fall within the scope of Library and Information Studies, as ours does).  Many authors support OA to the point of withdrawing their work from consideration from any title which does not allow instant sharing of content.

So how does this impact on the ‘big deals’?  Where publishers are dipping their toes into the waters of ‘hybrid Open Access’, will the pricing and make-up of such deals be affected?  Many still charge based on a historical subscription profile to safeguard profits – but in the case of a hybrid title, supported by an institution by paying for its authors to submit and make their work accessible to all, is there not a case for stating we are paying twice?

Sage have​ recently become the first big deal publisher to grant reduced rates for OA article submission, and this may well be a growing trend.  Ten or so years ago, there was a sense that OA might overturn the classic publishing model for journals, and there is still a sense that the ‘journal’ as we know it might give way to an article purchasing model, whether funded by authors or subscribers.

Gold OA might be supported by Finch and the UK Government, and it might be true that an ideal model of publishing would be to have titles fully funded by their submission authors/institutions/funding councils – but the ongoing debate does indicate that there is still very much a ‘Gold vs Green’ or ‘Gold/Green is Best’ faction out there.

Understanding e-resource licensing

As part of preparation for a training session requested by some subject team colleagues, I wanted to share a quick ‘ten things to remember’ about e-resource licensing.  This might assist those of you who have an interest in the area or need to have a basic understanding of the contract set between us as licensee (the University) and publishers/providers/aggregrators as licensor.

1.  WHO can access?  Look for user groups and definitions.  What is an ‘authorised user’?  Is there ‘walk-in access’ available?  Are any groups specifically excluded (alumni, retired staff)?  Are any activities excluded (commercial use)?

2.  HOW long is the notice period if we wish to cancel?​  In the case of a multi-year agreement, look for an ‘opt-out’ clause and any conditions attached to such a clause.  If it is an annual renewal take note of the notice period (usually 30 days, sometimes 60 or 90).

3.  WHAT is covered by the licence?  There should be a list of material appended as an appendix to the main agreement or a link to where such documentation may be found (e.g. a title list).  Is there post-cancellation access, and if so, which material is covered by it?  What is the policy on material which ceases publication or transfers to another publisher?

4. WHERE can the material covered by the licence be accessed (e.g. a publisher platform, on-campus only, off-campus?).  Are there any restrictions on use overseas?

5. WHICH forms of authentication are available (e.g. Shibboleth, Open Athens, EZProxy, IP address, Username and password)?

6. WHAT specialist software is needed, if any, and are there restrictions on certain browsers and/or operating systems?  This may not be present in the licence but if it is, it should be noted?

7. WHICH activities can be carried out by authorised users (e.g. inclusion of material in coursepacks, inter-library loan), and which are not allowed (e.g. ‘systematic downloading’).

8. HOW does the licence define a ‘campus’?  Note that multi-site campuses are usually defined as those with seperate administrations which would not cover KU.  If we are charged on a tier basis based on our size, is that tier stated correctly in the licence?

9. WHAT is the process in the event of a licence breach, and what is covered by the definition of a ‘breach’?

10. WHICH jurisdiction is the licence to be enforced under?  US licences often quote the state of origin, for example.

Finally, is the licence based on a ‘Model’ such as the JISC licence, or is it simply an adapted ‘terms and conditions’?  Is it available in machine-readable format (for example, in ELCAT)?

Open access and the Green/Gold debate

Stevan Harnad’s ‘call to arms’ on SERIALST today focused squarely on the wording of the Open Access Policy Statement of the RCUK (Research Councils UK) and its perhaps unintended ambiguity.

See
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/934-Disambiguating-RCUKs-Open-Access-Policy-Statement.html
for Harnad’s suggested revisions, to allow an author the choice of choosing either a Gold or Green OA option rather than only going for Green if they can’t go for Gold.

To quote Harnad:

“GOLD means the journal makes the article OA with CC-BY (“Libre OA”), usually for a fee.

GREEN means the author makes the article OA (“Gratis OA”) by depositing it in a repository, and making it OA within 0-12 months of publication”.

So is the RCUK’s statement really ‘a colossal failure’ which will cause funders and publishers alike to evaluate their position within the OA debate?  Does the ambiguous shift towards going for Gold before even considering Green mean that the Gratis OA route is under serious threat?  And should the effort being expended in the Green v Gold debate be directed toward making sure any repository embargo is 6 months or less?

Will the perceived focus on Gold OA above Green OA in the Finch report cause the whole scholarly publishing movement with regard to OA to change?

For details of current publisher policies re repositories, see RoMEO.

Our e-footprint and ownership

An article in the Evening Standard concerning Bruce Willis and ownership of his iTunes library made me think about how history will view us when most of our created content, and content we enjoy listening to, watching, or reading, is increasingly leaving an ‘e-footprint’ rather than a print archive.   As our personal data is stored ‘in the cloud’ and increasingly on servers and within products owned by corporations who only allow us licensed access (Google – Google +/Sites/Docs/Mail/YouTube; Apple – iTunes; Dropbox; YouSendit; Photobucket; Flickr; Twitter; Facebook/Pinterest), much of it for free, and the question has to be asked, will we be remembered in years to come or will our digital trail evaporate in a wave of technological advance?

Back when I worked in copyright as well as e-resources, the ownership of content on digital platforms was linked to the moral rights of the author to be acknowledged.  However at the same time I, and many other people, were contributing to services such as the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which allows the uploading of personal reviews of films and TV programmes under a pseudonym, but with the copyright assigned to the database.   After several years’ contributions, I started to question why I should relinquish my authorship to an internet site, especially when it was taken over by Amazon and became a commercial enterprise.

I have two pro accounts on Photobucket where I store images and photographs.  I have created videos for YouTube.  I maintain a forum on Proboards and a website on Weebly.  I have blogs on Blogger, Livejournal, and here.  I have a story site, now dormant, on MyJournal.  I published a poetry book on Kindle.  I have two Twitter accounts, one associated with each of my WordPress blogs.  I have Facebook and LinkedIn accounts.  I participate in a wide range of forums and discussion lists.  My digital footprint is not huge, but it is gaining significance.

I also, like Willis, have an iTunes library, which probably says more about my personality than anything else.  As does my personal delicious account, and my DVD Profiler.  All of this is under the control of others.  All of this is in services and platforms which might not be there tomorrow.  Out there in the world of web are my old Usenet posts (aka Deja News, later Google Groups).  There’s my Google, Bing, Ask search histories.  There’s my searches on BUBL and other old servers.  Over the years I’ve had email accounts with Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, Excite, and others.

In years to come, if and when everything becomes digital, and rather than physical and personal becomes cloud-based and intangible, how will we research the people of the past?   Will we move on too quickly to be able to reflect back to an age where the printed word, the letter, the diary, still mattered?   As file formats change and services fold and become part of takeovers and mergers, will our resources be safe?

And to use the iTunes example, can the providers who licence us their platforms really prevent us from willing on that content to our heirs?