Scholarly communications selected links from August 2016

Recommended links:

Copyright Law affects the work of scholars and libraries, so it seems worthwhile to know a bit about issues raised this month:

Three items about peer review in honor of Peer Review Week Sept. 19-25, 2016:

Clinical data sharing: The August 4th issue of New England Journal of Medicine had 4 articles on data sharing: Strengthening Research through Data Sharing; The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project — A Mechanism for Data Sharing; Toward Fairness in Data Sharing; Sharing Data from Cardiovascular Clinical Trials — A Proposal. If you are interested in this topic, don’t miss the Comments.

Scholarly book publishing; to survive, some suggest open access is the answer, but how are costs paid?

    I don’t think we have answers yet and we have scarcely begun this discussion at WU Libraries. Here are a few recent links which might trigger your thoughts.

  • The Summer 2016 issue of JEP: the Journal of Electronic Publishing focuses on the economics of scholarly book publishing and the results of a study of a “system of funding in which universities and colleges paid the costs of producing humanities monographs (rather than expecting publishers to recoup their costs from consumer payments)” [Added Sept. 28: This issue is discussed in a Scholarly Kitchen post, How Much Does Publishing Cost? with several comments.]
  • Knowledge Unlatched KU Select 2016 package was announced. While WU Libraries has participated in earlier packages, it seems unlikely that we will be able to find the $10K required to participate with this batch. If the package gets enough funding from other universities, we get open access to 147 front list and 196 backlist titles from 54 well-respected scholarly publishers. But if not enough can pay, the unlatching won’t happen.
  • This post from Dec. 2015 in The Scholarly Kitchen makes other useful points: For Open Access Monographs, Peter Pays Paul. Who Pays Peter?, by Joseph Esposito with many useful comments; “With the usage of STM journals recording big numbers and many university press books circulating rarely or not at all, the bias is built into the data: the best collection is the most useful collection. This does not mean that monographs don’t circulate or that they have no or little scholarly value; rather the point is that with finite resources, librarians have to make tough decisions. It’s a very difficult thing to be on the wrong side of a tough decision.”

About the author

Ruth is a librarian at Washington University for biology, math, history of science; she is also scholarly communications coordinator. Email: Phone: 314-935-4819