Archive for the 'information policy' category

Great presentation on ebook hassles

Mar 11 2014 Published by under information policy

Trying to explain to people about some ebooks is just miserable. Springer is the notable exception. Their stuff just works and is findable.

Enjoy this from Joelle Thomas and Galadriel Chilton:

ER&L 2014 Never Mind I'll Just Buy It: Why Library Users Won't Jump Through Your Hoops from Galadriel Chilton

No responses yet

Stockholm Deer

Feb 21 2014 Published by under information policy

Jenica Rogers, Director of Libraries and Archives at SUNY Potsdam, famous for dropping the ACS package, gave an outstanding Keynote at the Charleston Conference back in November. Her slides are here. There is a video here (only about 30 minutes - watch it). The title here is based on her point that librarians have Stockholm Syndrome and are like deer in the headlights.

Ms Rogers is notable for many things. She is somewhat young to be a Director of Libraries. She shares what it's like to be an administrator and provides wonderful mentoring for academic librarians in the ranks. She's a talented writer and speaker.

She also is quick to call bullshit when vendors play shenanigans thinking they can bully her because she is a woman or because she's younger. She's known for this with ACS and she's also taken on Sage.

This talk was more about how we need to be more than a pocketbook. How we need to call bullshit when vendors don't negotiate honestly. She brings up some horrific examples of contracts saying the library will try to thwart FOIA requests to get what they're paying. Libraries being offered deals if they stop pushing Open Access.

I think this resonated with a lot of people. I know of a society that was pricing based on what they could get away with, not their expenses plus a cushion. I think this is more typical that we know.

Anyhow. A while after, a rebuttal (yes really) came out in Against the Grain. I'll have to admit that I feel protective of Ms Rogers - which she surely doesn't need from me - so I got defensive immediately. But I looked at it again. Surely it's not all goodness and light for these authors! One says in the comments about some problems she has had.

One thing that some commenters miss is that many people use  - eek - swear words to express frustration over difficult situations or people. In some parts of the country swear words are part of the fabric of conversation. Her twitter account is her conversation. Her personal blog is conversation. That doesn't make her a bully. I have to admit that I was brought up not to swear and it was jarring to live next to someone from Brooklyn when I first got to college! And then when I went into the Navy... holy cow. (Of course now I can swear with the best of 'em. Who said the Navy wasn't good training?)

I have to admit that I'm a third-party to the negotiations. I come from a rich institution with strong leadership in the library that also won't take crap from vendors. They deal with this so I don't have to, but I will say that I will have to deal with our scientists who are going to miss some journals we're going to cancel next year from the society that insisted on a 16% price increase. I don't know if I'll point this video out to them but I hope some people outside the library world will watch it to understand a little more about what goes on.

This is really just meant to be a pointer post  - I'll leave more detailed analysis to others. I do recommend you note this post to LIBLICENSE - someone else standing up.

No responses yet

An interesting thought - journal article orphan works?

Dec 12 2013 Published by under information policy, publishing

I made an assumption and was called on it on Liblicense. I was under the impression that to be published you ( or someone from your place of work if it's work-for-hire like at mpow) had to have signed a copyright agreement. Turns out that over time, some publishers have been a little slipshod with this. They didn't follow up or they made some statement that if the author didn't sign, the transfer was assumed or claimed or whatever. Even if they got the agreement, they might not still have it.

Huh. According to Laura Quilter on LibLicense, in the US there has to be a signed agreement. So... makes you wonder... could these people who never signed agreements claim their own copyright back? Post their articles wherever they want? Or maybe it would still have to be the content stripped of all the publisher specific formatting and logo?

Worth pondering.

P.S. - read what you sign! consider the SPARC or other addendum.

No responses yet

Is the US government a good partner for linked data services?

Oct 01 2013 Published by under information policy

When they shut down servers instead of keeping them up with a skeleton crew? LOC data services are down and, as far as I can tell, almost all of NASA's web stuff has been taken down. PubMed is available with a skeleton crew.

Joe Hourclé pointed out on some listservs that they were even given guidance to return an HTTP status of 302 which will essentially tell search engines that they're gone forever.

Luckily, a lot of government-funded science data services are run by universities and research labs that already have their funding and will keep working.

What a mess.

One response so far

Peek in to the future DoD response to the OSTP memo?

Aug 27 2013 Published by under information policy

I'm really interested in how DoD, NASA, EPA (because of previous ties), and DoE will respond to the OSTP memo. I know that DoE is getting crap advice from some paid consultants to go with Chorus... but I haven't really heard much about the others.

Today I got a notice about the updated DoD Instruction related to Science and Technology Information (DoDI3200.12). This has been a pretty boilerplate instruction that establishes and sets the rules for DTIC, the Defense Technical Information Center. Keep in mind, too, that DoD components do sometimes (often?) blow off mandatory rules and requirements.

Anyhow. Here are some nice bits (emphasis mine):

Ensure that all results, regardless of outcome, of DoD R&E and studies efforts sponsored in whole or in part by the DoD, are documented and sent to the DTIC in accordance with DoDD 5105.73 (Reference ( af )).

(1) Components ensure that the DoD or extramural organization responsible for each research effort submits to DTIC, STI data that documents the effort to enable others to understand the purpose, scope, approach, results or outcomes, and conclusions or recommendations. The organization may submit any combination of technical reports, technical papers, journal articles , or other types of STI data .

(2) The organization must submit STI data that are primary sources of the information. Merely providing citations to where the information may be found is not sufficient to meet this requirement.

(3) Pending DoD implementation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum , (Reference ( ag )), if an extramural organization responsible for a research effort elects to submit materials protected by copyright , such as peer - reviewed journal articles, to DTIC as part of its documentation of the effort, DTIC makes the information available consistent with the license afforded to the government under the terms and conditions of the applicable contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other type of transaction

No responses yet

eBook DRM - do not like!

Jul 03 2013 Published by under information policy, publishing

MPOW had a trial for Taylor & Francis ebooks - in my professional opinion (not anyone else's) - I find T&F stuff overpriced, difficult to use, and less important than stuff from other publishers. We're quick to call their competitors evil, but at least the platforms work well! With that said, there are a few key journals there that we pretty much need. Some of these books might be useful, too. So I took a look.

ew, ew, ew!  The DRM is horrible. View on screen in quick view or pdf view with limited printing, copying/pasting; or download (requires a plugin to Acrobat) and no copying/pasting or printing and it's "saved for a limited time."  Just say no!

Oh, and while I'm naming names... McGraw-Hill changed what they offer for their AccessEngineering Library a while ago so that you can't print unless you create a login (boo!). Today an engineer showed what the print out looks like - massive watermark in black obscuring half the page. Nice job, McG-H!

No responses yet

Unexpected impacts of federal budget monkey business

Many government organizations are responding to the sequestration and various budget cuts by, among other things, cancelling support for conferences and cancelling all scientist and engineer travel to conferences.

Societies (like AIAA) are kvetching about their bottom lines, but this is really much more troubling than just the fiscal health of the societies given how important conferences are in keeping up in the field.

Scientists and engineers use conferences to meet potential collaboration partners and funders, to learn about new work, to maintain relationships formed at previous conferences, and to get feedback on their own work. Distance does still matter and in-person meetings are still important.*

Moreover, in some fields (**) conferences are archival and are relied upon for certification and distribution purposes. Other conferences are the first place new results are mentioned and many authors modify their work based on interactions at meetings ***.

We all complained bitterly during the previous administration about the funding of science and the suppression of some scientific results... but is this much better? How can government regulate well without being up on the science? Maybe this is temporary... but it doesn't look good.

__

* Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 139-178. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4 ( there are definitely better citations for this now,... but time is limited)

** Drott, M. C. (1995). Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly communication. JASIS, 46(4), 299-305.

*** Garvey, W. D., Tomita, K., Lin, N., & Nelson, C. E. (1972). Research Studies in Patterns of Scientific Communication .2. Role of National Meeting in Scientific and Technical Communication. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(4), 159-169. doi:10.1016/0020-0271(72)90001-0

 

note: it took me like weeks to write this because i kept (squirrel) getting distracted... hopefully it makes sense even if it's probably abbreviated from what I originally intended to write.

No responses yet

The latest land grab in the LIS world: Citation managers

Apr 10 2013 Published by under information policy, publishing

The information industry (or whatever) seems to go through wave after wave of big land grabs with mergers and acquisitions and then series of product launches. The current one is for citation managers. You might be wondering why now? What's going on? I have some thoughts (spurred along in part by discussions in the Library Society of the World area on FriendFeed).

Citation managers have been around since at least the 1980s if not before. They're really a no-brainer for people who need to write about their research (attributing ideas gotten elsewhere) and it always surprises me that not every scholar has one set up. They're simply a database that's smart about citations/references/bibliographies. All viable ones right now take imports from research databases, the web, and digital libraries; let you search; and let you reuse information by inserting citations into documents and formatting them in your preferred format. In the past 5-10 years, newer ones are web-based or at least back-up/sync over the web, and offer some social or collaboration features.

The web-based citation managers provide a ton of very interesting data to their companies:

  • What are people reading?
  • Where are they searching (where is their data coming from)?
  • How are they reading - what in documents do they find interesting (for services that provide annotation tools)?

You start to see, then, why for-profit publishers would find this very interesting indeed.

At the same time, the publishing market is growing at a set rate, so to increase profits, publishers need to branch out into different services. Hosting pre-prints? Indexing or hosting data (too expensive)? Expanding presence into other parts of the scientist's workflow (ding!)?

By expanding their brand's presence into the writing process and the reading and analyzing the literature process, companies gain a few possible benefits:

  • more places to put ads, better data to sell more relevant (thus acceptable and profitable) ads
  • lower the friction to submit valuable articles into their journals
  • get submissions with better markup so editing and typesetting are easier (may be a pipe dream)
  • more brand loyalty?

What's in it for us? Some of these big corporations actually have very functional UX teams and have the potential of really making some improvements. Better integration of these tools with the research databases and whatnot you already use could be useful.

With respect to Elsevier and Mendeley. Sure Elsevier is evil... BUT... they do actually have some really great products and they do spend a ton of money improving them. Some of their competitors are also evil, but do not put any money back into improving their interfaces.

Your data going to help Elsevier (and a fuss coming from a Microsoft employee - give me a break!)? Yeah, well, I guess I'm of the school that I'm willing to give up some things to get better and more relevant services. To be honest, Elsevier is a known entity and that's slightly more comfortable than a start-up on venture capital looking to turn a buck. Maybe less uncertainty is better? (bring on the pitchforks and torches!)

Other acquisitions: Springer and Papers - I actually missed this news last Fall.

Also: ACS and ChemWorx (not an acquisition but a partnership, I believe).

Of course Thomson Reuters bought ProCite, EndNote, Reference Manager ages ago and now offer EndNote Web to Web of Science subscribers.

Edit 4/30: I forgot to mention that ProQuest bought RefWorks a while ago. I just read today (via) that there's now a free version of EndNote Web. Competition is good!

No responses yet

Happy, happy day! OSTP issues directive to expand open access to the products of federally funded research.

So yesterday's post is obe, lol.

You might have seen the many calls to sign the We the People petition on Open Access (many tweets were tagged #OAMonday because there was a big push on a Monday to get the signatures rolling in). OSTP (the office of science and technology policy in the White House) has responded here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research

The OSTP Open Access memo is here (pdf): http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

So exciting, so happy. Now back to work!

News via John Dupuis who is retweeting a lot of things from around the web.

One response so far

DOE to try a publisher-sensitive pubmed central-like database?

Somehow I got on a NITRD e-mail list (probably a project I was on) and through that list I recently got an announcement of a presentation on PAGES (Public Access Gateway for Energy and Science) which is described as "a web-based portal that will ensure that, after an embargo period, scholarly publications sponsored by the Department of Energy are publicly accessible and searchable at no charge to readers."

I immediately got all excited - sounds a lot like pubmed central and woo-hoo because DOE funds a lot of research in diverse fields.

Then I read down a little ways and saw some strange caveat-like things or, well, not really weasel words but look here (emphases mine):

PAGES is designed to take advantage of the public access efforts of publishers by linking, via digital object identifiers (DOIs), to DOE articles they make publicly accessible.  Each such article serves as the Version of Record, and it is hosted by the publisher.  Thus, PAGES will avoid duplicating the public access efforts of publishers.

When DOE articles are not publicly accessible, PAGES will focus on accepted manuscripts.  Specifically, after an embargo period, it will link, via URLs, to publicly accessible manuscripts hosted by institutional repositories.  For those instances where free public access is offered neither by a publisher nor by an institutional repository, the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information will host the accepted manuscript and display it after an embargo period.  In both of these cases, PAGES will still provide DOI links to publishers’ websites, where articles may be accessed with a subscription or other transaction, thus maintaining a pathway to the Version of Record.

So this sounds very much like the authors were talking to the Executive Director of AIP, who was a DOE physicist (and administrator) prior to taking over at AIP. In his presentations and contributions to committees on scholarly communication he has put forth rental models, FundRef (a way to track research funding through CrossRef metadata), and links to the "version of record" at publishers all as ways to provide public access. I've already commented on rental models and knowing something exists and looking at the abstract may be intellectual access but it's not the real access that someone trying to do science needs. Publishers have long (and continuously) maintained that scientists are perfectly content with access and that, in general, access to the literature is just fine thank you very much.

So that's why I say "publisher-sensitive."

A couple of other weird things - we don't know the embargo period and it seems excessive not to even link to institutional repository copies until after the embargo. If the publisher allows immediate posting of the work in an institutional repository, then why wait? Seems strange.

Also no discussion of carrot, stick, mandate, or whatever. Will this be a condition of funding? Are they just going to crawl the web or whatever open repository harvester thingy to find these things? Hope authors volunteer publication information? Hmmm.

It looks like a similar presentation was given to CENDI.

In that presentation there's also this other thing that could have been written by publishers

Preserves the freedom of researchers to promote and disseminate their research, i.e., preserves researchers’ choice in selecting the journal to which they wish to submit manuscripts.

A bit of fud (maybe?) that publishers have been using in anti-mandate press releases is that mandates would force scientists to only publish in journals that would allow depositing of the manuscript thus taking away their freedom to select an appropriate venue. (seems to me if you publish a journal with lots of stuff funded by a mandate-having agency then you probably need to support compliance with the mandate, but that's just me.)

The original announcement also had this information:

Regardless of where DOE-sponsored articles or accepted manuscripts are hosted, PAGES will enable readers to search them all via a single search box.  Among the metadata thus returned by PAGES will be the DOI for the published article once that DOI is posted by the publisher.  PAGES will also be integrated with other DOE publicly-accessible R&D information and products, such as the 330,000 technical reports in the DOE Information Bridge

Over all definitely a good thing. I'm actually rather amused at how much they're trying to placate publishers. I guess they really don't want to get in to the lobbying and NIH-like battles. I can't say I really blame them. Limited money is best used elsewhere. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. It would be awesome if this got taken up by DOD. Really would be fabulous.

No responses yet

Older posts »