For this assignment, I chose D. Hiden Ramsey Library at UNC Asheville as the institution of consideration for the development or delivering of support for open access. In order to gain insight regarding where the university stands in reference to the integration of open access, I was able to contact the library and speak with Amanda Glenn-Bradley, who as the User Engagement Librarian and CrAFT Studio Coordinator for Ramsey Library. They were able to provide insight regarding open access within their institution.
Among the key takeaways, Amanda articulated that UNCA is currently not fully engaged with open access, instead operating in a support role for other institutions, where UNCA works on with providing technical support, website design and updates on code to these other institutions that have open access engrained within their systems in the form of open access journals or repositories. Amanda further elaborated that UNCA considers themselves more within the platinum/diamond model of open access in that grant funding had been received for allocation towards hosting costs for content that is meant to accessed without subscription fees or licenses not in the form of an onsite repository or journal.
A further point Amanda made was that UNCA is currently 100% undergraduate, resulting in any research or scholarly structured literature being produced by non-graduate level individuals. She notes that this specific demographic illustrates the other side of the open access coin, where open access aims to place the financial burden for publication onto the authors of the works or those that sponsor it. Amanda indicates that anecdotally, undergraduate students lack even the low end of the publication cost structure (citing $200-$250 being the range for the general fee for undergraduate publication within open access) not just because of their identity as undergraduates, but because their scholarly work lacks the deep pool of potential sponsorship that aides in the funding of research or publication. Due to this, UNCA is not currently seeking to integrate green or gold open access models as the publishable works that are created at UNCA are coming from undergraduates that lack the general base funds to participate in it effectively. If they were to play with the idea of implementing in-house an open access journal or repository, funding for undergraduate publishing would have to come from somewhere.
Regarding concerns for where UNCA stands with working within their current support role, the overall lack of funds for additional staffing has fostered an environment where trust in the peer review process an uphill battle (Reported and anecdotal experiences regarding predatory publishers certainly doesn’t help this situation, despite the fact that evidence illustrates that this is not wholly on open access’ shoulders, where such occurrences even occur with the larger conglomerates due to low or lack of standards for what can get published) (Eisen) (Bohannon 61). Due to these less-than-ideal staffing levels, the notions of what is considered “good peer review” are harder to demonstrate to those that wish to seek potential publication of their works with the other institution’s journals or repositories that UNCA aides in technical support.
Further, the establishment of funding programs or grants that aim to assist undergraduates with providing the funds necessary for their works to be published within an open access journal or repository would enable an increased undergraduate participation with the open access process. Currently, publishing with the older models is skewed to favor the undergraduates due to the financial burden of publishing not being placed on their shoulders.
Regarding how UNCA attempts to determine the success or failure of their role with open access, Amanda cites that their main tool for evaluation is foot traffic, citation numbers and quantity of downloads of documents housed in repositories. She notes that due to UNCA being 100% undergraduate, the university as a whole has a much broader range or potential disciplines to be the subject of research (HOAP). This produces difficulties in obtaining representative data regarding the metrics they use to measure success or failure as there is too little data per discipline, where getting data on these metrics on a macro level would produce outliers in the more or less successful disciplines that would skew the data set to the point of it illustrating non-representative trends regarding the overall picture of how well UNCA is operating in their technical support role.
Since UNCA is not presently considering integrating green or gold forms of open access, the potential integration of these models were not considered, with an eye more focused on working to improve upon prevailing roles in providing technical support for other institutions that utilizes these green and gold forms of open access.
In order to address these hurdles that UNCA faces, certain steps are to be considered. The most desirable outcome would be an increased allocation of funds for the department. While it’s not entirely feasible to determine how they could obtain these necessary funds (Amanda indicated that UNCA and almost any other institution that they correspond to is hurting in this area as well), this would enable the increase in staffing levels, increase the net of technical support that they can provide to other institutions that participate in open access, and work towards building optic confidence in the peer-review process. If these 3 aspects are addressed through the increased amount of funds made available to them, their success should increase in a measurable fashion.
Regarding the methods of evaluation Amanda presented regarding metrics on how much the content that they work with is being accessed, cited, or downloaded, this has unfortunately proven to be difficult to engage with due to the nature of the research that is being produced at UNCA (diversity in discipline coverage due to it being 100% undergraduate). A possible solution to get more representative and good data for measuring success or failure would be the gain a more comprehensive ability to collect data from across the institutions that they provide technical support for, which produce and contain vastly higher volumes of graduate-level scholarly published works. This would provide a deeper pool of data per discipline and on a whole, which could mitigate the potential effects that outliers have on the data. In gaining data relevant to the institutions that UNCA acts as technical support for, a more concise illustration of how successful their efforts are would be obtainable. Additional metrics like number of clicks on websites that UNCA assisted in designing user interfaces for would be an additional boon to see how much their designs affected users in their interactions with them.
With UNCA’s current level of participation with open access, the issue of funds seems the most paramount, as they (within their current role of support for other institutions) have policies that aid in their navigation of the potential perils that face participation within open access. Further funding would open the door for not just better allocation of their support resources, but also help foster trust in the peer-review process through increasing staffing levels for it and enable more undergraduates to not shoulder the financial burden of publishing within the open access framework.
References:
Bohannon, John. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? SCIENCE, 342, 60-63.
Eisen, Michael. (2013). I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription- based journals. It is NOT junk. https://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP). Drafting a Policy. https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Drafting_a_policy
For this assignment, I chose D. Hiden Ramsey Library at UNC Asheville as the institution of consideration for the development or delivering of support for open access. In order to gain insight regarding where the university stands in reference to the integration of open access, I was able to contact the library and speak with Amanda Glenn-Bradley, who as the User Engagement Librarian and CrAFT Studio Coordinator for Ramsey Library. They were able to provide insight regarding open access within their institution.
Among the key takeaways, Amanda articulated that UNCA is currently not fully engaged with open access, instead operating in a support role for other institutions, where UNCA works on with providing technical support, website design and updates on code to these other institutions that have open access engrained within their systems in the form of open access journals or repositories. Amanda further elaborated that UNCA considers themselves more within the platinum/diamond model of open access in that grant funding had been received for allocation towards hosting costs for content that is meant to accessed without subscription fees or licenses not in the form of an onsite repository or journal.
A further point Amanda made was that UNCA is currently 100% undergraduate, resulting in any research or scholarly structured literature being produced by non-graduate level individuals. She notes that this specific demographic illustrates the other side of the open access coin, where open access aims to place the financial burden for publication onto the authors of the works or those that sponsor it. Amanda indicates that anecdotally, undergraduate students lack even the low end of the publication cost structure (citing $200-$250 being the range for the general fee for undergraduate publication within open access) not just because of their identity as undergraduates, but because their scholarly work lacks the deep pool of potential sponsorship that aides in the funding of research or publication. Due to this, UNCA is not currently seeking to integrate green or gold open access models as the publishable works that are created at UNCA are coming from undergraduates that lack the general base funds to participate in it effectively. If they were to play with the idea of implementing in-house an open access journal or repository, funding for undergraduate publishing would have to come from somewhere.
Regarding concerns for where UNCA stands with working within their current support role, the overall lack of funds for additional staffing has fostered an environment where trust in the peer review process an uphill battle (Reported and anecdotal experiences regarding predatory publishers certainly doesn’t help this situation, despite the fact that evidence illustrates that this is not wholly on open access’ shoulders, where such occurrences even occur with the larger conglomerates due to low or lack of standards for what can get published) (Eisen) (Bohannon 61). Due to these less-than-ideal staffing levels, the notions of what is considered “good peer review” are harder to demonstrate to those that wish to seek potential publication of their works with the other institution’s journals or repositories that UNCA aides in technical support.
Further, the establishment of funding programs or grants that aim to assist undergraduates with providing the funds necessary for their works to be published within an open access journal or repository would enable an increased undergraduate participation with the open access process. Currently, publishing with the older models is skewed to favor the undergraduates due to the financial burden of publishing not being placed on their shoulders.
Regarding how UNCA attempts to determine the success or failure of their role with open access, Amanda cites that their main tool for evaluation is foot traffic, citation numbers and quantity of downloads of documents housed in repositories. She notes that due to UNCA being 100% undergraduate, the university as a whole has a much broader range or potential disciplines to be the subject of research (HOAP). This produces difficulties in obtaining representative data regarding the metrics they use to measure success or failure as there is too little data per discipline, where getting data on these metrics on a macro level would produce outliers in the more or less successful disciplines that would skew the data set to the point of it illustrating non-representative trends regarding the overall picture of how well UNCA is operating in their technical support role.
Since UNCA is not presently considering integrating green or gold forms of open access, the potential integration of these models were not considered, with an eye more focused on working to improve upon prevailing roles in providing technical support for other institutions that utilizes these green and gold forms of open access.
In order to address these hurdles that UNCA faces, certain steps are to be considered. The most desirable outcome would be an increased allocation of funds for the department. While it’s not entirely feasible to determine how they could obtain these necessary funds (Amanda indicated that UNCA and almost any other institution that they correspond to is hurting in this area as well), this would enable the increase in staffing levels, increase the net of technical support that they can provide to other institutions that participate in open access, and work towards building optic confidence in the peer-review process. If these 3 aspects are addressed through the increased amount of funds made available to them, their success should increase in a measurable fashion.
Regarding the methods of evaluation Amanda presented regarding metrics on how much the content that they work with is being accessed, cited, or downloaded, this has unfortunately proven to be difficult to engage with due to the nature of the research that is being produced at UNCA (diversity in discipline coverage due to it being 100% undergraduate). A possible solution to get more representative and good data for measuring success or failure would be the gain a more comprehensive ability to collect data from across the institutions that they provide technical support for, which produce and contain vastly higher volumes of graduate-level scholarly published works. This would provide a deeper pool of data per discipline and on a whole, which could mitigate the potential effects that outliers have on the data. In gaining data relevant to the institutions that UNCA acts as technical support for, a more concise illustration of how successful their efforts are would be obtainable. Additional metrics like number of clicks on websites that UNCA assisted in designing user interfaces for would be an additional boon to see how much their designs affected users in their interactions with them.
With UNCA’s current level of participation with open access, the issue of funds seems the most paramount, as they (within their current role of support for other institutions) have policies that aid in their navigation of the potential perils that face participation within open access. Further funding would open the door for not just better allocation of their support resources, but also help foster trust in the peer-review process through increasing staffing levels for it and enable more undergraduates to not shoulder the financial burden of publishing within the open access framework.
References:
Bohannon, John. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? SCIENCE, 342, 60-63.
Eisen, Michael. (2013). I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription- based journals. It is NOT junk. https://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP). Drafting a Policy. https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Drafting_a_policy
For this assignment, I chose D. Hiden Ramsey Library at UNC Asheville as the institution of consideration for the development or delivering of support for open access. In order to gain insight regarding where the university stands in reference to the integration of open access, I was able to contact the library and speak with Amanda Glenn-Bradley, who as the User Engagement Librarian and CrAFT Studio Coordinator for Ramsey Library. They were able to provide insight regarding open access within their institution.
Among the key takeaways, Amanda articulated that UNCA is currently not fully engaged with open access, instead operating in a support role for other institutions, where UNCA works on with providing technical support, website design and updates on code to these other institutions that have open access engrained within their systems in the form of open access journals or repositories. Amanda further elaborated that UNCA considers themselves more within the platinum/diamond model of open access in that grant funding had been received for allocation towards hosting costs for content that is meant to accessed without subscription fees or licenses not in the form of an onsite repository or journal.
A further point Amanda made was that UNCA is currently 100% undergraduate, resulting in any research or scholarly structured literature being produced by non-graduate level individuals. She notes that this specific demographic illustrates the other side of the open access coin, where open access aims to place the financial burden for publication onto the authors of the works or those that sponsor it. Amanda indicates that anecdotally, undergraduate students lack even the low end of the publication cost structure (citing $200-$250 being the range for the general fee for undergraduate publication within open access) not just because of their identity as undergraduates, but because their scholarly work lacks the deep pool of potential sponsorship that aides in the funding of research or publication. Due to this, UNCA is not currently seeking to integrate green or gold open access models as the publishable works that are created at UNCA are coming from undergraduates that lack the general base funds to participate in it effectively. If they were to play with the idea of implementing in-house an open access journal or repository, funding for undergraduate publishing would have to come from somewhere.
Regarding concerns for where UNCA stands with working within their current support role, the overall lack of funds for additional staffing has fostered an environment where trust in the peer review process an uphill battle (Reported and anecdotal experiences regarding predatory publishers certainly doesn’t help this situation, despite the fact that evidence illustrates that this is not wholly on open access’ shoulders, where such occurrences even occur with the larger conglomerates due to low or lack of standards for what can get published) (Eisen) (Bohannon 61). Due to these less-than-ideal staffing levels, the notions of what is considered “good peer review” are harder to demonstrate to those that wish to seek potential publication of their works with the other institution’s journals or repositories that UNCA aides in technical support.
Further, the establishment of funding programs or grants that aim to assist undergraduates with providing the funds necessary for their works to be published within an open access journal or repository would enable an increased undergraduate participation with the open access process. Currently, publishing with the older models is skewed to favor the undergraduates due to the financial burden of publishing not being placed on their shoulders.
Regarding how UNCA attempts to determine the success or failure of their role with open access, Amanda cites that their main tool for evaluation is foot traffic, citation numbers and quantity of downloads of documents housed in repositories. She notes that due to UNCA being 100% undergraduate, the university as a whole has a much broader range or potential disciplines to be the subject of research (HOAP). This produces difficulties in obtaining representative data regarding the metrics they use to measure success or failure as there is too little data per discipline, where getting data on these metrics on a macro level would produce outliers in the more or less successful disciplines that would skew the data set to the point of it illustrating non-representative trends regarding the overall picture of how well UNCA is operating in their technical support role.
Since UNCA is not presently considering integrating green or gold forms of open access, the potential integration of these models were not considered, with an eye more focused on working to improve upon prevailing roles in providing technical support for other institutions that utilizes these green and gold forms of open access.
In order to address these hurdles that UNCA faces, certain steps are to be considered. The most desirable outcome would be an increased allocation of funds for the department. While it’s not entirely feasible to determine how they could obtain these necessary funds (Amanda indicated that UNCA and almost any other institution that they correspond to is hurting in this area as well), this would enable the increase in staffing levels, increase the net of technical support that they can provide to other institutions that participate in open access, and work towards building optic confidence in the peer-review process. If these 3 aspects are addressed through the increased amount of funds made available to them, their success should increase in a measurable fashion.
Regarding the methods of evaluation Amanda presented regarding metrics on how much the content that they work with is being accessed, cited, or downloaded, this has unfortunately proven to be difficult to engage with due to the nature of the research that is being produced at UNCA (diversity in discipline coverage due to it being 100% undergraduate). A possible solution to get more representative and good data for measuring success or failure would be the gain a more comprehensive ability to collect data from across the institutions that they provide technical support for, which produce and contain vastly higher volumes of graduate-level scholarly published works. This would provide a deeper pool of data per discipline and on a whole, which could mitigate the potential effects that outliers have on the data. In gaining data relevant to the institutions that UNCA acts as technical support for, a more concise illustration of how successful their efforts are would be obtainable. Additional metrics like number of clicks on websites that UNCA assisted in designing user interfaces for would be an additional boon to see how much their designs affected users in their interactions with them.
With UNCA’s current level of participation with open access, the issue of funds seems the most paramount, as they (within their current role of support for other institutions) have policies that aid in their navigation of the potential perils that face participation within open access. Further funding would open the door for not just better allocation of their support resources, but also help foster trust in the peer-review process through increasing staffing levels for it and enable more undergraduates to not shoulder the financial burden of publishing within the open access framework.
References:
Bohannon, John. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? SCIENCE, 342, 60-63.
Eisen, Michael. (2013). I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription- based journals. It is NOT junk. https://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP). Drafting a Policy. https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Drafting_a_policy