DOCSLIB.ORG

A Landscape Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Landscape Study University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1-2021 Academic Libraries and Open Access Books in Europe: A Landscape Study Agata Morka Open Book Publishers Rupert Gatti Open Book Publishers Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Morka, Agata and Gatti, Rupert, "Academic Libraries and Open Access Books in Europe: A Landscape Study" (2021). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 186. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/186 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. open scholarly communication in the european research area for social sciences and humanities Academic Libraries and Open Access Books in Europe A Landscape Study By Agata Morka and Rupert Gatti January 2021 open scholarly communication in the european research area for social sciences and humanities This report has been created as a result of cooperation between the OPERAS-P and COPIM projects. They share similar interests in exploring innovative revenue models for open access books. COPIM is supported by the Research England Development Fund (REDFund), and by Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. This project has received funding from the European Union‘s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 871069 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4483773 Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................7 ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AND OA BOOKS IN EUROPE (OVERVIEW TABLE) ............................................................. 9 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................12 Background to the OPERAS-P project .................................................................................................. 12 Background to the COPIM project ...................................................................................................... 12 Aims ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 14 1. CROATIA ................................................................................................................................................................15 1.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 15 1.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 15 1.3 OA book policies ........................................................................................................................... 16 1.4 OA book funding ............................................................................................................................ 16 1.5 Library/scholar-led OA book publishing ........................................................................................ 17 1.6 Integration of OA books in library systems .................................................................................... 17 Important Contributors .................................................................................................................... 17 2. DENMARK .............................................................................................................................................................18 2.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 18 2.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 18 2.3 OA book policies ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 OA book funding ............................................................................................................................ 19 2.5 Library/scholar-led OA book publishing ........................................................................................ 19 2.6 Integration of OA books in library systems .................................................................................... 20 Important Contributors .................................................................................................................... 20 3. FINLAND ................................................................................................................................................................20 3.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 20 3.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 21 3.3 OA book policies ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 OA book funding ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.5 Library/scholar-led OA book publishing ........................................................................................ 22 3.6 Integration of OA books in library systems .................................................................................... 22 Important Contributors ................................................................................................................... 22 4. FRANCE .................................................................................................................................................................23 4.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 23 4.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 23 4.3 OA book policies ........................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 OA book funding ............................................................................................................................ 24 4.5 Library/scholar-led OA book publishing ........................................................................................ 24 4.6 Integration of OA books in library systems .................................................................................... 25 Important Contributors .................................................................................................................... 25 5. GERMANY .............................................................................................................................................................25 5.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 26 5.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 26 5.3 OA book policies ........................................................................................................................... 26 5.4 OA book funding ............................................................................................................................ 27 5.5 Library/scholar-led OA book publishing ........................................................................................ 27 5.6 Integration of OA books in library systems .................................................................................... 28 Important Contributors .................................................................................................................... 28 6. GREECE ..................................................................................................................................................................29 6.1 General library system for e-content and OA publications ............................................................ 29 6.2 Library community and open access ............................................................................................. 29 6.3 OA book policies ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Peter Baldwin UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
    Features Forum Conference Reports GHI News WHY ARE UNIVERSITIES OPEN ACCESS LAGGARDS? Peter Baldwin UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Copyright was invented in the eighteenth century to give cultural producers property rights in their works, allowing them to live from their eff orts.1 It was specifi cally intended to benefi t those who worked independently, not for wages or salary. Work-for-hire was the only element of copyright dealing with salaried employees. That evolved only later in any detail, and then not equally in all nations. Work-for-hire gives employers — not the creators — most rights in works produced by their employees. It was introduced in the nine- teenth century to deal with commissioned art works. Who owned a portrait, the painter or the commissioner? But it was elaborated in law mainly in the twentieth century, especially in the U.S., and largely at the behest of the fi lm industry. It is not hard to see why. Film is an inherently collaborative art form, demanding cooperation among scores of diff erent creators, all with reasonable claims to be important participants. Copyright stakes two primary claims: the artistic or moral rights, like those of attribution and integrity, and the economic or monopoly rights. The fi rst give authors the right to be identifi ed as such and to prevent their works from being changed without approval. They are largely uncontroversial and need no further comment here. The property right grants a temporary monopoly over dissemination, thus stimulating creators to further eff orts by rewarding them. Equally important, copyright’s monopoly made dissemination possible in the fi rst place.
    [Show full text]
  • Paying Attention to Public Readers of Canadian Literature
    PAYING ATTENTION TO PUBLIC READERS OF CANADIAN LITERATURE: POPULAR GENRE SYSTEMS, PUBLICS, AND CANONS by KATHRYN GRAFTON BA, The University of British Columbia, 1992 MPhil, University of Stirling, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (English) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2010 © Kathryn Grafton, 2010 ABSTRACT Paying Attention to Public Readers of Canadian Literature examines contemporary moments when Canadian literature has been canonized in the context of popular reading programs. I investigate the canonical agency of public readers who participate in these programs: readers acting in a non-professional capacity who speak and write publicly about their reading experiences. I argue that contemporary popular canons are discursive spaces whose constitution depends upon public readers. My work resists the common critique that these reading programs and their canons produce a mass of readers who read the same work at the same time in the same way. To demonstrate that public readers are canon-makers, I offer a genre approach to contemporary canons that draws upon literary and new rhetorical genre theory. I contend in Chapter One that canons are discursive spaces comprised of public literary texts and public texts about literature, including those produced by readers. I study the intertextual dynamics of canons through Michael Warner’s theory of publics and Anne Freadman’s concept of “uptake.” Canons arise from genre systems that are constituted to respond to exigencies readily recognized by many readers, motivating some to participate. I argue that public readers’ agency lies in the contingent ways they select and interpret a literary work while taking up and instantiating a canonizing genre.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the European Workshop
    Deliverable Grant Agreement number: 288945 Project acronym: MEDOANET Project title: Mediterranean Open Access Network Funding Scheme: Coordination Support Action Project co-ordinator Organisation: EKT/NHRF Project website address: www.medoanet.eu Deliverable No. 3.1 Deliverable Name Report on the European Workshop Lead Beneficiary UMINHO Dissemination Level PU Due Date M17 MedOANet: Deliverable No.3.1 1 Report on the European Workshop © 2013 MEDOANET All rights reserved. Reproduction only with written consent by the coordinator. MEDOANET is an FP7 project funded by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION This publication reflects only the author’s views – the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. MedOANet: Deliverable No.3.1 2 Document Change Control The following is the document control for revisions to this document. Version Date of Author(s) Brief Description of Change Number Issue V1 22 February Clara Boavida Initial Draft 2013 V2 18 April Clara Boavida Draft reviewed (Vasso Kalaitzi, Eloy Rodrigues, Clara 2013 Boavida) V3 24 April Clara Boavida Additional revisions (Eloy Rodrigues, Clara Boavida) V4 30 April Clara Boavida Final Version MedOANet: Deliverable No.3.1 3 Acronyms EC – European Commission ENCES – European Network for Copyright in support of Education and Science EOS – Enabling Open Scholarship EUA – European University Association FP7 – Seventh Framework Programme H2020 – Horizon 2020 ID - Identification IRs – Institutional Repositories LERU – League of European Research Universities LIBER – Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche OA – Open Access RPOs – Research Performing Organizations UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization MedOANet: Deliverable No.3.1 4 Table of contents Background ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Programme Organised in Collaboration with EUA and LIBER
    Science Europe is a non-profit organisation based in Brussels representing major Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations across Europe. For more information on its mission and activities, see www.scienceeurope.org. To contact Science Europe, e-mail [email protected]. Challenging the Current Business Models Workshop in Academic Publishing Accelerators and Obstacles to the Open Access Transition Programme organised in collaboration with EUA and LIBER When Background 26–27 April 2017 “Ensure that […] transparency is improved, in particular by informing the public about agreements Wednesday 12.00–17.45 between public institutions or groups of public institutions and publishers for the supply of scientific Thursday 09.00–13.10 information. This should include agreements covering the so-called ‘big deals’, i.e. bundles of print and electronic journal subscriptions offered at discounted price…” —European Commission, 17 July 2012 Where Bundles of journals offered by publishers and acquired by libraries, the so-called ‘Big Deals’, are the Radisson Blu Astrid dominating business model in academic publishing. They were introduced to answer the so-called Koningin Astridplein 7 serials crisis which occurred in the subscription model about two decades ago. Nowadays, the logic 2018 Antwerp, Belgium and also the business structures behind ‘Big Deals’ are increasingly considered and employed to shape the transition from the subscription world into an open access publishing paradigm based on article processing charges (APCs). Dinner ‘Big Deals’ have advantages, yet also severe disadvantages, and thus are a highly disputed business Grand Café De Rooden Hoed model. This leads to the question if and what disadvantages of the ‘Big Deals’ need to be taken into Oude Koornmarkt 25 account when using them as a transition instrument to implement and increase open access and how 2000 Antwerp, Belgium such disadvantages could be avoided or mitigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Library Instruction Round Table
    LIRT empowers librarians from all types of libraries to become better teachers through sharing best practices, leadership and professional development, and networking. Sc h o o l P u b l i c Sp e c i a l A c a d e m i c Library Instruction Round Table From the President NEWS Mark Robison ISSN 2161-6426 I’m so excited to be serving you this year! LIRT has long been my professional September 2019 home, and I hope you find that LIRT contributes meaningfully to your growth as Volume 42 a librarian. No. 1 LIRT had a fantastic Annual Meeting, and I wanted to note some highlights from contents the conference. The Conference Program Committee hosted a standing-room- 1 ... From the President only program on mindfulness. After an opening meditation led by Ven. Sagarananda Tien, three librarians—Amy Laughlin of Ferguson Library 2 ... From the Past President (Stamford, CT), Zaiga Alksnitis of Middlesex School (Concord, MA), and Jill 4 … From the Editor Luedke of Temple University—described 5 … Member A-LIRT Tressa Snyder how mindfulness improves their teaching. Laughlin incorporates centering activities 6... Who’s Who in LIRT into storytimes. Alksnitis’s school incorporated mindfulness into its 8 ... LIRT Committee Reports curriculum. Luedke uses contemplative 9 ... Tech Talk activities in her one-shot sessions. All ALA members should have access to the 10 ... Organizational Effectiveness and recording of this timely program at this Governance Review (SCOE) link. 11 ... LIRT @ ALA Annual 2019 We also had an impressively well-attended Conference Program All Membership Meeting at Annual.
    [Show full text]
  • Odyssey Elementary Library Media School Level Guidelines
    ODYSSEY ELEMENTARY LIBRARY MEDIA SCHOOL LEVEL GUIDELINES The purpose of the library is not only to help the students develop a love for reading, but teach them about literature, research, technology and other skills that will help them to understand the world around them and how they can contribute. LIBRARY CLASS SCHEDULE Each class has an assigned time to visit the library. Kindergarten classes are 20 minutes once a week. 1st through 6th grades attend for 30 minutes weekly unless an assembly, holiday, early-out, or a field trip takes that time. Class library times are not “made up”, but students may exchange books during open library. Kindergarten will not check out any books. 1st grades can check out one book during their class time and 2nd through 6th grades may check out two books. Each book is due 2 weeks from check out date. LIBRARY HOURS The library is open at specific times each day for book exchange. As soon as a student has finished a book, their teacher may give them permission to come to open library to exchange it. He/she does not have to wait until their next weekly class time. Open library hours are 8:45 – 9:15 each morning. Friday’s anytime that the librarian is available in the library until 1:15. LIBRARY CURRICULUM Students will be taught library skills appropriate to their grade level according to the DESK (Davis Essential Skills & Knowledge) standards. Through stories, book talks, displays, videos, and author spotlights, students will learn that reading is fun and educational. They will understand how to get the most out of reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access in Portugal: Recent Evolution and Current Situation
    Open Access in Portugal: Recent Evolution and Current Situation Eloy Rodrigues Agenda 1. Introduction and Background 2. OA evolution in Portugal 3. RCAAP project – Recent work and current situation 4. Future work RCAAP - Repositório Cientifico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal Context: Portuguese Scientifc System ● The Portuguese scientific and research system was small and underdeveloped until the end of the 20th century. This situation has been changing mainly in the last 10 years. ● On the last decade the number of researchers and scientific output (number of journal articles referenced on ISI) has been growing at an annual rate bigger than 10%; ● The number of Portuguese articles referenced annually by ISI was lower than 1.000 until 1990, become bigger than 5.000 only on 2003 and is currently near 8.500. RCAAP - Repositório Cientifico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal Context: Portuguese Scientifc System ● The growth of the portuguese scientific output on the last decade was one of the biggest in Europe. ● This was the result of a national effort (growth of investment in science) but also of the previous level of scientific output. Fonte: GPEARI - Gabinete de Planeamento, Estratégia, Avaliação e Relações Internacionais / Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e do Ensino Superior RCAAP - Repositório Cientifico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal Evolution of Open Access in Portugal ● The early developments of Open Access in Portugal were mainly driven by Universities, with several initiatives to promote the visibility and access to their scientific output;
    [Show full text]
  • Blood Ties: Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878
    BLOOD TIES BLOOD TIES Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 I˙pek Yosmaog˘lu Cornell University Press Ithaca & London Copyright © 2014 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2014 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2014 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yosmaog˘lu, I˙pek, author. Blood ties : religion, violence,. and the politics of nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 / Ipek K. Yosmaog˘lu. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-5226-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8014-7924-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Macedonia—History—1878–1912. 2. Nationalism—Macedonia—History. 3. Macedonian question. 4. Macedonia—Ethnic relations. 5. Ethnic conflict— Macedonia—History. 6. Political violence—Macedonia—History. I. Title. DR2215.Y67 2013 949.76′01—dc23 2013021661 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Paperback printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To Josh Contents Acknowledgments ix Note on Transliteration xiii Introduction 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access to Scientific Publishing
    Editorial http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1880 Janne Beate Reitan Open access to scientific publishing Interest in open access (OA) to scientific publications is steadily increasing, both in Norway and internationally. From the outset, FORMakademisk has been published as a digital journal, and it was one of the first to offer OA in Norway. We have since the beginning used Open Journal Systems (OJS) as publishing software. OJS is part of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), which was created by Canadian John Willinsky and colleagues at the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia in 1998. The first version of OJS came as an open source software in 2001. The programme is free for everyone to use and is part of a larger collective movement wherein knowledge is shared. When FORMakademisk started in 2008, we received much help from the journal Acta Didactic (n.d.) at the University of Oslo, which had started the year before us. They had also translated the programme to Norwegian. From the start, we were able to publish in both Norwegian and English. Other journals have used FORMakademisk as a model and source of inspiration when starting or when converting from subscription-based print journals to electronic OA, including the Journal of Norwegian Media Researchers [Norsk medietidsskrift]. It is in this way that the movement around PKP works and continues to grow to provide free access to research. As the articles are OA, they are also easily accessible to non-scientists. We also emphasise that the language should be readily available, although it should maintain a high scientific quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the Emerging Open Access Landscape in Greece: Achievements, Challenges, Prospects
    Tracing the Emerging Open Access Landscape in Greece: Achievements, Challenges, Prospects Victoria Tsoukala; Nikos Houssos; Panagiotis Stathopoulos; Ioanna Sarantopoulou; Margaritis Proedrou; Despoina Chardouveli; Evi Sachini National Documentation Centre /National Hellenic Research Foundation [email protected] 2nd Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, 24 August 2010, Prague This presentation • OA landscape in Greece • OA Work at the National Documentation Centre (EKT) 2nd Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, 24 August 2010, Prague The emerging OA landscape • Growing awarenes on OA, but slowwwww…. – Greece signatory of 2004 OECD Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding . Yet…. Only 4 institutions in Berlin Declaration • Role of librarians • Role of EU grants and digitization projects in changing SC • Primarily IRs and OA journals, with steady growth. • Funding: government and EU grants; sponsoring • Major players in SC and OA: societies and academic institutions; private publishers not as active in e-publishing • Major fields of e-publishing and OA: STM • Increasing activities after 2006, 3 conferences on OA in 2008 • EKT’s portal www.openaccess.gr launched in 2008 • www.openarchives.gr , a federated search engine harvesting from Greek digital collections (private enterprise) • 2009 OA report on Greece, prepared by HEAL-link for SELL 2nd Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, 24 August 2010, Prague Achievements • Large number of digitized and openly accessible documents, cultural and research along with the infrastructures to host them (IRs, Journals etc) • Increasing number of OA journals and IRs, approximately half of the 33 universities have one; 26 journals in DOAJ • Tendency of online peer-reviewed journals, particularly e-only, to be OA.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?
    1 Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? 1 2 3 2 Tony Ross-Hellauer , Birgit Schmidt , and Bianca Kramer 1 3 Know-Center, Austria, (corres. author: [email protected]) 2 4 Goettingen State and University Library, Germany 3 5 Utrecht University Library, Netherlands 6 May 23, 2018 1 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 23 May 2018, publ: 23 May 2018 7 Abstract 8 As open access to publications continues to gather momentum we should continu- 9 ously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this 10 space is the creation of open access publishing platforms commissioned by funding or- 11 ganisations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, 12 as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commis- 13 sion and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it 14 becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent 15 phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This 16 article examines ethical, organisational and economic strengths and weaknesses of such 17 platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats 18 presented by funder open access platforms in the ongoing transition to open access. The 19 article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, 20 finding them a novel intervention which stand to help increase OA uptake, control costs 21 of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commit- 22 ment to fostering open practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Or Green: the Debate on Open Access Policies
    PERSPECTIVES INTERNATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY (2013) 16:199-203 doi: 10.2436/20.1501.01.194 ISSN 1139-6709 www.im.microbios.org Gold or green: the debate on Open Access policies Ernest Abadal Faculty of Library and Information Science, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Received 16 August 2013 · Accepted 20 September 2013 Summary. The movement for open access to science seeks to achieve unrestricted and free access to academic publications on the Internet. To this end, two mechanisms have been established: the gold road, in which scientific journals are openly accessible, and the green road, in which publications are self-archived in repositories. The publication of the Finch Report in 2012, advocating exclusively the adoption of the gold road, generated a debate as to whether either of the two options should be prioritized. The recommendations of the Finch Report stirred controversy among academicians specialized in open access issues, who felt that the role played by repositories was not adequately considered and because the green road places the burden of publishing costs basically on authors. The Finch Report’s conclusions are compatible with the characteristics of science communication in the UK and they could surely also be applied to the (few) countries with a powerful publishing industry and substantial research funding. In Spain, both the current national legislation and the existing rules at universities largely advocate the green road. This is directly related to the structure of scientific communication in Spain, where many journals have little commercial significance, the system of charging a fee to authors has not been adopted, and there is a good repository infrastructure.
    [Show full text]