DOCSLIB.ORG

OSI's Open Science Roadmap Recommendations to UNESCO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OSI POLICY PERSPECTIVES OPEN SCIENCE ROADMAP RECOMMENDATIONS TO UNESCO OSI POLICY PERSPECTIVE 3 JUNE 2020 EDITION OPEN SCHOLARSHIP INITIATIVE ABOUT OSI POLICY PERSPECTIVES The OSI Policy Perspectives series offers broad, common ground perspectives on key issues in scholarly communication. Each report summarizes the current state of a particular issue and what we know about it, and also attempts to articulate the per- spectives and lessons of experience from all stake¬holder groups in scholarly communication on this issue (particularly but not exclusively as expressed in OSI conversations) and identify what common ground might exist for building broadly acceptable policy. OSI is not a democratic body that speaks with one voice on any particular issue. Trying to reconcile the views, intentions, and motivations of all the different actors, communities and groups in the scholarly communication space—which are very rarely entirely aligned—is challenging. We acknowledge, therefore, that these reports may be (and in fact, probably are) an imperfect reflection of the many perspectives and ideas in this group. The fact that these reports sometimes need to be published in a rush, in response to policy commenting deadlines and other pressures only makes this imperfection more likely. We also acknowledge, however, that OSI often considers a wider range of perspectives than established policy making bodies in scholarly communication, and that our relative strength is showcasing this range of perspectives and noting how they differ, and importantly, how they share common ground. To this end, we hope it is valuable to produce these reports, however imper- fect, and share them with the scholarly communication community and beyond. © 2020 OSI. Except where otherwise noted, this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Glenn Hampson is the executive director of the Science Communication Institute and program director and principal investigator for OSI. Mel DeSart is the Head of the Engineering Library and Branch Libraries at the Uni- versity of Washington. Jason Steinhauer is the Director, Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest, Villanova University. Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager at Loughborough University. Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe is Professor/Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction in the University Library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Micah Vandegrift is the Open Knowledge Librarian at North Carolina State University. Chris Erdmann is an Engagement, Support, and Training Expert at the University of North Carolina RENCI. Rob Johnson is the Founder and Director of Research Consulting Ltd. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thank you to all OSI participants for creating the body of work summarized in this report. In the cre- ation and editing of this document, special thanks to the authors listed above as well as to Nina Collins and Margaret Winker. CONFLICT STATEMENT: Hampson is the program director and principal investigator for OSI, which receives funding from UNESCO, foundations, commercial publishers, and individual participants (by way of conference fees). DeSart, Steinhauer, Gadd, Vandegrift, Erdmann and Johnson are also active participants in OSI. In addition, OSI serves UNESCO in an official advisory capacity (see sidebar on page 1). In terms of explicit influence, no OSI funders, including UNESCO, have privileged input into OSI policy deliberations apart from being equal members of the OSI community. OSI has many voices contributing to documents such as this, and endeavors to maintain an inclusive and balanced perspective on scholarly communication issues. DISCLAIMER: In this report, the authors have attempted to accurately represent the perspective and ideas of OSI participants, alumni and observers. However, it is possible that this attempt is incomplete and/or inaccurate. Any responsibility for errors, omissions and/or misrepresentations rests solely with the lead author. Also, the findings and recommendations expressed herein also do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all authors or contributors, individual OSI participants, alumni, or observ- ers, or any institutions, trustees, officers, or staff affiliated with these individuals. PRIOR AND OTHER VERSIONS: There are no prior public versions of this document. CITATION: Hampson, G, M DeSart, J Steinhauer, EA Gadd, LJ Hinchliffe, M Vandegrift, C Erdmann, and R Johnson. 2020 (June). OSI Policy Perspective 3: Open science roadmap recommendations to UNESCO. Open Scholarship Initiative. doi 10.13021/ osi2020.2735 OPEN SCIENCE ROADMAP RECOMMENDATIONS TO UNESCO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART 1: GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OSI’S CONSULTATIONS ...................................... 3 KEY RESOURCES CREATED BY OSI .................................................................................................3 OSI2016 OUTCOMES .............................................................................................................................4 OSI2017 OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................................... 11 OSI2016-17 SYNTHESIS .................................................................................................................... 23 OSI2018 AND OSI2019 SUMMIT MEETINGS ............................................................................. 24 PART 2: ANSWERS TO UNESCO’S QUESTIONS ABOUT OPEN SCIENCE ...................................... 27 WHAT IS OPEN SCIENCE? ................................................................................................................ 27 WHAT ARE THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF OPEN SCIENCE? ....................................................... 32 WHO ARE THE ACTORS IN OPEN SCIENCE? ............................................................................ 33 WHAT ARE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTING OPEN SCIENCE? .......... 35 WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR OPEN SCIENCE? ........................................................... 41 WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES FOR OPEN SCIENCE? .............................................................. 43 WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPEN SCIENCE? ......................... 49 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 50 SHORTCOMINGS OF THIS INQUIRY .............................................................................................. 54 THE POSSIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ‘OPEN SCIENCE’ ............................ 55 THANK YOU ............................................................................................................................................ 56 CITED REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................57 ANNEX 1: OSI’s COMMON GROUND OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................... 60 ANNEX 2: OSI’S PLAN A ................................................................................................................................... 67 ANNEX 3: OSI PARTICIPANTS, ALUMNI AND OBSERVERS ............................................................... 91 OPEN SCIENCE ROADMAP RECOMMENDATIONS TO UNESCO ABOUT OSI The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is a diverse, inclusive, global network of high-level experts and stakeholder rep- UNESCO is designing an open science plan for review resentatives working together by the UN General Assembly in late 2021, and has in partnership with United Nations Educational, Scientif- requested input from the Open Scholarship Initiative. ic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to develop broadly OSI has worked in partnership with UNESCO since early accepted, comprehensive, sustainable solutions to the 2015 to forge a workable, equitable, and sustainable future of open scholarship that path for improving the openness of all research, not work for everyone everywhere. OSI is managed by the Science only science. OSI advises that UNESCO follow the open Communication Institute (SCI), a US-based 501c3 nonprofit science roadmap recommendations described herein, charity. OSI serves in an advi- sory capacity to UNESCO as and that this path culminate in either the outright the agency’s Network for Open adoption of OSI’s Plan A as UN policy; the use of Plan A Access to Scientific Informa- tion and Research (NOASIR). as a blueprint for eventual United Nations policy; or the For more information about use of these roadmap recommendations and/or Plan A OSI, please visit osiglobal.org. as the foundation for a similar United Nations policy that has the benefit of broader global input. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY any organizations are committed to improving the future of open science, and many ideas and policies have been put in place to try to achieve this goal. Yet no single agency is leading the Mcoordination of this effort; there are innumerable ideas about how best to achieve the various goals and outcome; and scientists themselves have not been well represented in most of the reforms to date. OSI has been studying open scholarship (which includes open science) since late 2014, working in partnership with UNESCO to better understand the broad range of perspectives and understand how the world might be
Recommended publications
  • Peter Baldwin UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

    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.
  • PATHWAYS to OPEN ACCESS University of California Libraries

    PATHWAYS to OPEN ACCESS University of California Libraries

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2-27-2018 PATHWAYS TO OPEN ACCESS University of California Libraries 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 University of California Libraries, "PATHWAYS TO OPEN ACCESS" (2018). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 74. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/74 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. PATHWAYS TO OPEN ACCESS Approved 27 February 2018 Prepared by the University of California Libraries PATHWAYS TO OPEN ACCESS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Definitions 1 Approaches & Strategies 2 Green OA 2 Gold OA, APC-based 12 Gold OA, Non-APC Funded 23 Universal Strategies 28 Possible Next Steps 35 Green OA 35 Gold OA, APC-based 36 Gold OA, Non-APC-based 37 Universal Strategies 38 Selected Bibliography 40 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the University of California (UC) Council of University Librarian’s (CoUL)1 3 August 2017 charge, this Pathways to OA Working Group2 has identified the current universe of Open Access (OA) approaches, and has analyzed the suite of strategies available for effectuating those approaches. Each approach described within this Pathways document offers unique and, in some cases, overlapping challenges, opportunities, and room for experimentation.
  • Educating Ourselves and Our Patrons About Retracted Articles

    Educating Ourselves and Our Patrons About Retracted Articles

    Joanna Thielen 183 When Scholarly Publishing Goes Awry: Educating 18.1. Ourselves and Our Patrons portal about Retracted Articles Joanna Thielen publication, for abstract: Retracted articles, articles that violate professional ethics, are an unsettling, yet integral, part of the scholarly publishing process seldom discussed in the academy. Unfortunately, article retractions continue to rise across all disciplines. Although academic librarians consistently provide instruction on scholarly publishing, little has been writtenaccepted about their role in educating patrons about retracted article. This article provides an overview of the article retraction process. Search strategies for locating retracted articles in several scholarlyand databases are discussed. Suggestions on how to incorporate article retractions into information literacy instruction are provided, including connections to the Association of College and Research Libraries Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. edited, copy Introduction n the academy, there is a heightened awareness of the fallibility of scholarly research and publishing. This awareness is exemplified by the “reproducibility crisis”: re- searchersreviewed, have become increasingly cognizant that many published research stud- Iies cannot be successfully duplicated.1 For example, only a reported 10 to 25 percent of cancerpeer biology studies can be reproduced.2 (Being unable to reproduce published resultsis does not necessarily indicate that the authors committed malfeasance or that the article’s results are incorrect. Rather, it only indicates that another researcher was unable to replicate the published work.) The lack of reproducibility of scholarly research has led mss. to calls for more transparency in research and publication practices. While the scholarly publishing process, including peer review, is intended to set rigorous standards and This expectations for publications, it is not infallible.
  • Amending Published Articles: Time to Rethink Retractions and Corrections?[Version 1; Peer Review: 2 Approved with Reservations]

    Amending Published Articles: Time to Rethink Retractions and Corrections?[Version 1; Peer Review: 2 Approved with Reservations]

    F1000Research 2017, 6:1960 Last updated: 20 SEP 2021 OPINION ARTICLE Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Virginia Barbour 1, Theodora Bloom 2, Jennifer Lin 3, Elizabeth Moylan 4 1QUT, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland, 4059, Australia 2BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR, UK 3Crossref, North American Office , 50 Salem Street, Lynnfield, MA 01940, USA 4BMC (part of Springer Nature), 236 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8HB, UK v1 First published: 06 Nov 2017, 6:1960 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1 Latest published: 06 Nov 2017, 6:1960 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1 Reviewer Status Invited Reviewers Abstract Academic publishing is evolving and our current system of correcting 1 2 research post-publication is failing, both ideologically and practically. It does not encourage researchers to engage in necessary post- version 1 publication changes in a consistent way. Worse yet, post-publication 06 Nov 2017 report report ‘updates’ can be misconstrued as punishments or admissions of misconduct. 1. Lex M. Bouter , VU University Medical We propose a different model that publishers of research can apply to Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands the content they publish, ensuring that any post-publication Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The amendments are seamless, transparent and propagated to all the Netherlands countless places online where descriptions of research appear. At the center of our proposal is use of the neutral term “amendment” to 2. C.K. Gunsalus , University of Illinois at describe all forms of post-publication change to an article.
  • Scholarly Research and Information

    Scholarly Research and Information

    ISSN 2658-3143 (Online) ТОМ 1, № 1, 2018 WWW.NEICONJOURNAL.COM НАУКА И НАУЧНАЯ ИНФОРМАЦИЯ SCHOLARLY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION В НОМЕРЕ: Отношение российского научного сообщества к открытому доступу: 2018 г. Анализ результа- тов опроса Разумова И.К., Литвинова Н.Н., Шварцман М.Е., Кузнецов А.Ю. Сетевые сервисы БЕН РАН как основа информа- ционного сопровождения научных исследований Каленов Н.Е. Функции библиотеки в наукометрической оценке публикационной активности вуза Дудникова О.В., Смирнова О.А. Библиотеки в программе 5-100, или За 3 года до… Михайлова Ю.В., Плохих М.В., Расплетина Е.Г. Организация единой точки доступа к ресурсам библиотеки: поиск вариантов реализации Литвинова Н.Н. Методика оценки зарубежных журналов в рамках выбранной тематики для публикации российских статей Глушановский А.В. МОСКВА, 2018 Наука и научная информация Том 1, № 1, 2018 Scholarly Research and Information V. 1, No. 1, 2018 Наука и научная информация научный рецензируемый журнал Цели и задачи Цель журнала «Наука и научная информация» — содействие развитию науки и образования за счет интеграции авторитетных электронных научных ресурсов в исследовательский и образовательный процесс. Одной из основных задач журнала является обобщение научных и практических достижений в части развития электронных информа- ционных ресурсов и сервисов, их вклад в процесс научных исследований и решение вопросов государственной политики, направленной на повышение уровня образования и науки, качества научных публикаций и развития си- стемы научных периодических изданий и расширения их присутствия в международном научно-информационном пространстве. Научная концепция издания предполагает публикацию материалов в следующих областях знания: «Науковеде- ние», «Народное образование. Педагогика», «Библиотечное дело. Библиотековедение» (по классификатору ГРНТИ). К публикации в журнале приглашаются как отечественные, так и зарубежные ученые и специалисты в вышепере- численных областях знания.
  • Download Full White Paper

    Download Full White Paper

    Open Access White Paper University of Oregon SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON OPEN ACCESS I. Executive Summary II. Introduction a. Definition and History of the Open Access Movement b. History of Open Access at the University of Oregon c. The Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon III. Overview of Current Open Access Trends and Practices a. Open Access Formats b. Advantages and Challenges of the Open Access Approach IV. OA in the Process of Research & Dissemination of Scholarly Works at UO a. A Summary of Current Circumstances b. Moving Towards Transformative Agreements c. Open Access Publishing at UO V. Advancing Open Access at the University of Oregon and Beyond a. Barriers to Moving Forward with OA b. Suggestions for Local Action at UO 1 Executive Summary The state of global scholarly communications has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, as libraries, funders and some publishers have sought to hasten the spread of more open practices for the dissemination of results in scholarly research worldwide. These practices have become collectively known as Open Access (OA), defined as "the free, immediate, online availability of research articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment." The aim of this report — the Open Access White Paper by the Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon — is to review the factors that have precipitated these recent changes and to explain their relevance for members of the University of Oregon community. Open Access History and Trends Recently, the OA movement has gained momentum as academic institutions around the globe have begun negotiating and signing creative, new agreements with for-profit commercial publishers, and as innovations to the business models for disseminating scholarly research have become more widely adopted.
  • Authorship, Publication, and Peer Review Mark Hooper* , Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs

    Authorship, Publication, and Peer Review Mark Hooper* , Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs

    Hooper et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 Research Integrity and https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0046-2 Peer Review COMMENTARY Open Access Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review Mark Hooper* , Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs Abstract This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains an open question how best to conduct this training. For this reason, it is vital for institutions, journals, and peak bodies to share learnings. We describe how we have collaborated across our institution to develop training that supports QUT’s principles and which is in line with insights from contemporary research on best practices in learning design, universal design, and faculty involvement. We also discuss how we have refined these courses iteratively over time, and consider potential mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the courses more formally. Background and allows institutions and researchers to demonstrate The idea that institutions ought to provide researchers their commitment to comprehensive research integrity with formal training in research integrity is now gener- training and to satisfy the requirements of certain fund- ally accepted. How best to conduct research integrity ing bodies. training, however, is a contested issue [1–5]. However, it is not clear that the “standalone” training One option is to provide research integrity training by method is sufficient to teach research integrity effectively way of “standalone” courses or units, covering a broad or to promote an institutional culture that truly values range of responsible research practices.
  • Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings

    Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang , Cameron Neylon , Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy , Richard Hosking , Lucy Montgomery , Katie Wilson , and Alkim Ozaygen an open access journal Centre for Culture and Technology, Curtin University, Bentley 6102, Western Australia Keywords: bibliographic data, data quality, open access, OpenCitations, research evaluation, Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/1/2/445/1885863/qss_a_00031.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 university ranking, Unpaywall Citation: Huang, C.-K., Neylon, C., Brookes-Kenworthy, C., Hosking, R., ABSTRACT Montgomery, L., Wilson, K., & Ozaygen, A. (2020).Comparison of bibliographic Universities are increasingly evaluated on the basis of their outputs. These are often converted data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings. to simple and contested rankings with substantial implications for recruitment, income, and Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 445–478. https://doi.org/10.1162/ perceived prestige. Such evaluation usually relies on a single data source to define the set of qss_a_00031 outputs for a university. However, few studies have explored differences across data sources DOI: and their implications for metrics and rankings at the institutional scale. We address this gap https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00031 by performing detailed bibliographic comparisons between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Supporting Information: and Microsoft Academic (MSA) at the institutional level and supplement this with a manual https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/ suppl/10.1162/qss_a_00031 analysis of 15 universities. We further construct two simple rankings based on citation count and open access status. Our results show that there are significant differences across data- Received: 29 August 2019 Accepted: 14 January 2020 bases.
  • The Scythian Campaign of Philip II: a Problem of Reconstruction And

    The Scythian Campaign of Philip II: a Problem of Reconstruction And

    Kleymeonov. Space and Culture, India 2018, 6:2 Page | 94 https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v6i2.337 RESEARCH OPEN ACCESS The Scythian Campaign of Philip II: A Problem of Reconstruction and Localisation Alexander Anatolevich Kleymeonov† Abstract The article considers the campaign of the Macedonian King Philip II against the Scythians in 339 B.C. The principal objectives of this study were to determine the plans of King Philip II and the balance of the forces of the opposing parties. The study also analysed the course of the military operations and the results of the campaign. The study uses a multifaceted approach to probe the ancient narrative sources. It also makes a content analysis of the data, retrieved from various national scientific schools. The analyses reveal that Philip conducted a military campaign against Ateas with the help of small expeditionary forces that moved from Byzantion to the mouth of the River Istros (Danube). Philip's enemy Ateas was a ruler of a small Scythian kingdom in Dobrudzha. The primary goals of the Macedonian king’s campaign were to capture booty and help the local allies. A desire to morally compensate for the unsuccessful completion of the sieges of Perinthos and Byzantion was the central motive of the campaign. The result of the war was determined in a single pitched battle. Despite the defeat of the Scythians in Dobrudzha, Philip could not deliver the captured booty to Macedonia because of the limited forces. The Triballoi captured this booty, and this devalued the success of the whole Scythian campaign. Keywords: Scythians, Philip II, Ateas, Dobrudzha, Warfare † Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University, 125 Lenin Prospect, Tula, 300026, Russia, Email: [email protected] © 2018 Kleymeonov.
  • (B): Motion Pictures and Literary Works – Text and Data Mining

    (B): Motion Pictures and Literary Works – Text and Data Mining

    Submission on behalf of Joint Creators and Copyright Owners Class 7(a) & (b): Motion Pictures and Literary Works – Text and Data Mining [ ] Check here if multimedia evidence is being provided in connection with this comment ITEM A. COMMENTER INFORMATION The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (“MPA”) is a trade association representing some of the world’s largest producers and distributors of motion pictures and other audiovisual entertainment for viewing in theaters, on prerecorded media, over broadcast TV, cable and satellite services, and on the internet. The MPA’s members are: Netflix Studios, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Universal City Studios LLC, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Alliance for Recorded Music (“ARM”) is a nonprofit coalition comprising the many artists and record labels who together perform, create, and/or distribute nearly all of the sound recordings commercially released in the United States. Members include the American Association of Independent Music (“A2IM”), the Music Artists Coalition (“MAC”), the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (“RIAA”), hundreds of recording artists, the major record companies, and more than 600 independently owned U.S. music labels. The Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”) is the United States trade association serving companies that publish computer and video games for video game consoles, handheld video game devices, personal computers, and the internet. It represents nearly all of the major video game publishers and major video game platform providers in the United States. Represented By: J. Matthew Williams ([email protected]) Sofia Castillo ([email protected]) MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 1818 N Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C.
  • Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War

    Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War

    Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War TARAS KUZIO This e-book is provided without charge via free download by E-International Relations (www.E-IR.info). It is not permitted to be sold in electronic format under any circumstances. If you enjoy our free e-books, please consider leaving a small donation to allow us to continue investing in open access publications: http://www.e-ir.info/about/donate/ i Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War TARAS KUZIO ii E-International Relations www.E-IR.info Bristol, England 2020 ISBN 978-1-910814-55-0 This book is published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license. You are free to: • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material Under the following terms: • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission. Please contact [email protected] for any such enquiries, including for licensing and translation requests. Other than the terms noted above, there are no restrictions placed on the use and dissemination of this book for student learning materials/scholarly use. Production: Michael Tang Cover Image: Triff/Shutterstock A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
  • If Rumors Were Horses Vendor Library Partnerships

    If Rumors Were Horses Vendor Library Partnerships

    c/o Katina Strauch Post Office Box 799 Sullivan’s Island, SC 29482 MLA, SLA, BOOK EXPO ISSUE TM VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2018 ISSN: 1043-2094 “Linking Publishers, Vendors and Librarians” Vendor Library Partnerships by Maggie Farrell (Dean of Libraries, University of Nevada Las Vegas) <[email protected]> and Barbara Kawecki (Director of Customer Retention, Western U.S. GOBI Library Solutions from EBSCO) <[email protected]> and Rick Branham (Vice President Academic Library Initiatives, SirsiDynix) <[email protected]> e are pleased to present the featured to provide tools and techniques to improve of depth in which it might be a casual, informal articles on vendor partnerships. This the relationship recognizing the shared goals, relationship to a deep, connected partnership. Wstory began many years ago when the motivational differences, and problem solving There are certain characteristics that are evident three of us, likely over drinks, mulled about the methods. Most recently, we have been interest- when the relationship moves from a purchaser sometimes contentious relationship between ed in transforming a vendor-client arrangement to a partnership. In this issue, we will explore vendors and librarians. The relationship can to form a more engaged relationship in which those characteristics as well as provide some be defined as “frenemies” in which librarians the vendor and librarian are acting as partners. ideas on how to form partnerships. Tips and tolerate working with vendors as a necessary Approaching a vendor as a partner, rather than a strategies will be presented that will facilitate evil in order to purchase services and content.