97035 research outputs found
Sort by
ellipticus
No full textPenstemon ellipticus J.M.Coult. & Fisherelliptic-leaved beardtonguepenstémon à feuilles elliptiquesNorth Kootenay PassT. ChisholmN. grassy hillside around snow depression leading to moist gully; rocky sloped area below scree avalanche1973Juniperus communis, Abies balsamea, Ribes lacustre, Heracleum maximum, Cirsium hookerianum, Penstemon confertus, Aquilegia flavescens>4
glaucophylla
No full textPotentilla glaucophylla Lehm. var. glaucophyllablue-leaved cinquefoilpotentille à feuilles glauquesWhistler RidgeT. ChisholmAlong ridgeline from Whistler Mt. to Windsor; open rocky limestone meadow with red shale covering ground2174Townsendia parryi, Potentilla uniflora, Potentilla ovina, Smelowskia americana, Dryas octopetala, Erigeron compositus, Saxifraga bronchialis, Polemonium pulcherrimum, Antennaria umbrinella>5
Library Lore (Issue 3)
No full textLibrary Lore | Spring 2019 / Issue 3 1
Following wide-ranging discussions about open access (OA) at its past two annual joint meetings
with faculty library reps, the GFC Library Committee adopted a plan in Spring 2018 to pursue
an OA policy for the University of Lethbridge. An OA Advisory Group1 was convened in the
summer to draft a policy and guide a process of educating our community about the initiative.
Over Fall 2018, subject librarians introduced the initiative at faculty/departmental meetings and to
invite feedback on the draft policy.
A key goal of the initiative is to ensure permanent public access to scholarly articles by U of L
authors via the U of L research repository, OPUS. A key benefit for authors is the significant
citation advantage associated with openly disseminated scholarship. Most commercial publishers
support OA by allowing public dissemination of authors’ accepted manuscripts (AAMs) in research
repositories, but we wondered what proportion of articles by U of L authors are eligible for public
dissemination in OPUS?
To find out, the Library searched multiple indexes to try to identify all peer-reviewed articles
published between 2014 and 2018 that were authored by U of L researchers. We then assessed
each item in the resulting list of 1,676 articles to determine if it was published in an OA journal
and if the publisher’s version of record (VOR) could be archived in OPUS. For articles in non-
OA journals, we checked publishers’ policies to see if the AAM or VOR could be made publicly
available in OPUS, and if so, whether an embargo period applied.
Open Access Policy Initiative
What we found was eye-opening. Of the 1,676 articles we identified, fully 97% were eligible for public dissemination in OPUS (with or
without embargos): 69% as AAMs and 28% as VORs. A mere 3% of the articles were either in a journal whose publisher does not permit
OA dissemination of any kind or we were unable to ascertain the publisher’s policies on OA dissemination. Of the AAMs that could be
made OA in OPUS, 84% were subject to embargos. The two most common embargo periods were 12 months (67%) and 24 months
(22%).
Knowing that almost all of the articles we looked at could be archived in OPUS on an OA basis led us to explore how many are publicly
available in OPUS right now. The results were sobering: only 9 of the 1,149 eligible AAMs (0.8%) and 126 of the 477 eligible VORs
(26.4%)—overall, 8% of the 1,676 articles—have been deposited in OPUS. On the other hand, adoption of an OA policy in which U of
L researchers collectively grant non-exclusive permission to the University to archive and disseminate their scholarly articles could
significantly reduce unpursued OA opportunities and benefits like these in the future.
“Of the 1,676 articles we identified, fully 97%
were eligible for public dissemination in OPUS...”
1Group members: Rene Barendregt, Jennifer Mather, Ian McAdam, John von Heyking (Arts & Science); Adriane MacDonald (Business); Christy Audet, Thelma Gunn (Education),
Ken Allan (Fine Arts), Mark Zieber (Health Sciences), Courtney Hamilton (GSA), Claudia Malacrida (ORIS); Nicole Eva, Rumi Graham, Chris Nicol, Emma Scott, Rhys Stevens
(Library).
IN THIS ISSUE
Recent Publications
and Presentations
(p.5)
Database Spotlight
(p.5)
New Database (p.5)
Research Data
Management Survey
Winners (p.4)
The Reluctant Open
Access Librarian (p.4)
Textbook Lending
Pilot Progam (p.3)
An interview with
Romany Craig,
Information Literacy
Coordinator (p.3)
Spring 2019 / ISSUE 3
Library Lore | Spring 2019 / Issue 3 2
Open Access Policy Initiative (Cont.)
Draft Policy FAQs
Responses to questions about the draft policy are available as FAQs on the policy initiative website. Two issues that have arisen recently
are briefly summarized here.
Q: Does the draft policy violate the Faculty Handbook (FH) article on intellectual property?
A: It seems unlikely. The section of the FH dealing with copyright provides that except when members are explicitly required to create
works as part of their assigned duties, the members are the owners of copyright in the works they produce in the course of employment.
It is critically important that faculty are the copyright owners of their scholarly articles, as the draft policy proposes that faculty collectively
exercise their rights as copyright owners by choosing to grant the University the non-exclusive permission to archive and publicly
disseminate their scholarly articles. In other words, the FH provisions on copyright enable faculty to grant the non-exclusive rights
proposed in the policy.
Q: Why does the draft policy require faculty to cede significant rights to the University?
A: The draft policy does not ask faculty to surrender any rights to the University. Instead, it proposes that faculty collectively grant non-exclusive
permission to publicly disseminate their articles in OPUS. Faculty would not be alienating any of their copyrights as the granted
permission is non-exclusive, meaning that the same permission may be granted to others. Each author would still own the copyrights
in their article and would remain free to exercise them independently. The policy seeks to have faculty give blanket non-exclusive
permission to the University to make their articles openly accessible in ways that publishers’ policies already permit but few faculty
currently pursue.
The number of articles that were
ineligible to be disseminated
through OPUS
The number of articles that were
deposited into OPUS
The number of articles that could
have been deposited into OPUS
U of L authored articles from 2014-2018
Library Lore | Spring 2019 / Issue 3 3
An interview with Romany Craig,
Information Literacy Coordinator (Part II)
Romany Craig, Information Literacy Coordinator
To read the first part of this interview
between Sandra Cowan and Romany Craig,
click here.
SC: I know many professors lament
the lack of critical thinking skills like
information literacy in their students.
Is there anything you’d recommend to
busy professors who may not have time
to add it into their courses as an extra
component?
RC: Course time is valuable and there is
always more content we’d like to cover
than there is time in which to cover it.
There are many ways to meaningfully
embed information literacy into the course
curriculum that don’t have to take up a
lot of extra class time. A small step would
be to model source evaluation by talking
briefly about how the sources students are
using in class were located and selected
for them. It shows them that academic
work is about more than assembling a list
of sources based on the top hits from a
general search. A few sentences can give
students ideas about what characteristics
are important to scholars in their
discipline, which they can then use when
looking for sources for their assignments.
Another small step is talking about your
own research and publication processes.
Doing so is useful because it reveals
information creation as a complex and
iterative process. Providing your personal
narrative to a concept such as peer-review,
for example, will help students to see there
are many players in the publication and
dissemination of scholarly work. It’s a fairly
simple step to take but is useful not only
to develop understanding but to cultivate
a sense of its value in the creation of
scholarly knowledge.
Including a variety of formative and
summative assessments is another way to
engage information literacy skills without
taking time away from course content.
For instance, scaffolding a final research
paper with an annotated bibliography and
reflective research log is a great way to
gain insight to a student’s research process
and evaluative skill in a way that allows
timely, directive feedback so their final
product is stronger.
A clever formative activity could be to have
students look for a popular magazine
or news story reporting on scholarly
research findings and have them compare
the two. This could lead to discussions
about audience and purpose, helping
students better understand what scholarly
sources are or are not. It could also lead
to broader discussions about different
kinds of bias, journalistic ethics, or news
media conventions; topics that are vital
to information literacy but that students
may not get exposed to anywhere else.
The more students are required to engage
with information, in different ways and
to diferent degrees, the better they will
come to understand the complexity of the
information landscape and the role they
have within it.
There are lots of possibilities to include
information literacy development that can
enhance subject content or assessment
strategies. If you’re interested in finding
out more, contact me or your subject
liaison librarian.
SC: What are some of the information
literacy initiatives that are already
underway at the U of L Library?
RC: We’re piloting an instructional
program in the fall that will provide first-year
students with a basic foundation
of information literacy skills and an
awareness of library services. The aim of
the program is to aid in that transition
from high school to university and provide
a baseline that instructors can expect of
their students. The program is going to
be delivered using a blended approach of
online and in-person instruction, and we
are working with the Office of the Registrar
to try to find a way this could be delivered
outside of course time and tracked so that
instructors can be assured their students
have completed it.
We’re also looking at the intersections
of technological literacy and information
literacy more broadly. Another vision is to
provide a venue for holistic engagement
with technology that emphasizes critical
thinking and the role of technology in
academic and personal life. We see this as
an opportunity to engage people across
disciplines and to connect various existing
efforts on campus. This work is still in the
very early stages so I’d love to connect with
anyone who shares this interest.
Textbook Lending Pilot Program
This spring the Library and the Bookstore are collaborating in a pilot program where the Library purchases one copy of each required
textbook costing over 200 and places that textbook on reserve in the Library. We know that textbook costs can be prohibitive to
students, and we frequently receive inquiries from students about the availability of their course textbook in the Library – whether it’s
to look at briefly before purchasing, because they left their copy at home, or because they simply can’t afford to purchase all of their
required textbooks at the going rates. Students in classes where the textbook has qualified for this program can look up that text under
the Course Reserves tab on the Library Homepage, where they will find the call number which they can bring to the Help Desk at the
Library to borrow the textbook for a 2-hour loan.
If you would like to discuss lower-cost alternatives for future classes, such as Open Educational Resources or Library materials, please
contact your Subject Librarian who would be happy to discuss the options with you.
Library Lore | Spring 2019 / Issue 3 4
The Reluctant Open Access
Librarian
If Open Access (OA) and I posted our relationship status on
Facebook it would be, “It’s complicated.” It’s not that I disagree
with the movement, I am overwhelmed by it. When I was little,
my grandmother would have a big puzzle in progress on her
games table. These puzzles were so large and complex that we
couldn’t complete them in one sitting. We had to keep going back.
Do the edges first, a few more pieces here, one stubborn piece
there. That’s how the scholarly publishing situation has felt to me.
I couldn’t absorb it all at once and I’ve had to ask for help with
those tricky pieces. So, if you’re feeling overwhelmed, reluctant, or
outright skeptical, I get it. No judgment here.
The first piece of my puzzle is access. When I tell someone I’m
a librarian, they often assume it is because I love being around
books. Don’t get me wrong, I do love books, but my motivations
are bigger than a format. I’ve repeatedly experienced first-hand
the advantages of information access and literacy. I’ve had
the privilege of watching patrons not only succeed with their
assignments but also transform their lives. I’m still in this gig
because I love facilitating access to information. I teach patrons
how to find it, evaluate it, use it, create it, and distribute it. In that
context, the now-annual exercise of cutting access to information
feels fundamentally wrong. Every moment I spend with a
spreadsheet figuring out what resource gets the axe is a moment
I’m not building a collection or connecting people to it.
The most obvious piece of the puzzle when discussing OA is the
rising costs of electronic journal subscriptions. Perhaps you’ve
heard someone from the library talk about the unsustainability of
the current model of scholarly publishing. While this is a crucial
talking point, the piece of the puzzle that has helped clarify my
views and strengthen my resolve is related to value. As a librarian,
I have to know how to stretch limited collections dollars. While
in my heart I feel that knowledge is invaluable, when it comes to
its published form I know that there are limits to how much we
should pay to provide access to it.
It is fair to ask, “What justification do the publishers have for their
prices?” While I concede that there are still costs in the electronic
era that they need to cover, the monstrous profit margins they
routinely post clearly indicate that there’s a lot of room between
expenses and profits. Besides, they have a huge advantage. You.
You are the most important piece of my puzzle.
Yes, you! You produce the scholarship. You provide the peer-review.
You edit. The prestige of publishing in certain journals?
That’s you. The Big 5 academic publishers don’t have much to
ofer without you. Instead of compensating you for the knowledge
you’ve produced or vetted, they sell it back to you, but only if you
are privileged enough to work at an institution that can afford
their ever-increasing prices.
I know what some of you may be thinking: “Libraries like OA
because it is better for them.” To that I counter, “What’s good for
us is good for our communities.” If we’re sounding the alarm you
should listen. You should listen because we tend to put others’
needs before our own. You should listen because before we
take any position we’ve researched it, reasoned it out, debated
it (endlessly) in our professional communities, and reached the
conclusion that scholarly publishing is in a crisis state that cannot
continue. “But what about those author processing charges
(APCs)? You’re passing the cost on to me!” I don’t want you
paying APCs either. That’s why I’ve been creating non-predatory
OA journal lists, with an emphasis on no-charge options, for my
subject areas (for example, see my Education guide). If this is
something you’re interested in, I heartily encourage you to contact
your own liaison librarian. We’re here to help.
If you decide that OA isn’t for you, I won’t shame you! Besides, I
don’t claim to be an OA purist. Why do I label myself reluctant?
Because I wish we didn’t have to have this conversation. Frankly,
I don’t want to be a publisher. Perhaps I’m reluctant about OA
because if the publishers would charge a reasonable price I’d be
happy to pay it. I’d pay it and then I’d get back to the part of my
job that I love: connecting patrons to the information they need.
By Paula Cardozo
Research Data Management Survey Winners
Our recent survey of the research data management practices on campus
finished on October 31, 2018. Thank you to the 102 faculty, graduate students
and postdocs that responded.
Congratulations to Michaelle Tuz-Atkinson, Nguyet Luu, Suzanne Chmilar, and
Akalanka Galappaththi, our winners of the survey draw. They each received a
lovely gift bag from Cuppers Cofee & Tea.
Shelly Wismath was our grand prize winner! She won a gift bag containing an
external hard drive and other goodies.
Now that the results are in, we’ll start the analysis to see how ORIS and the
Library can best support researchers on campus.
Thank you again to all our participants!
Dr. Shelly Wismath, grand prize winner
Library Lore | Spring 2019 / Issue 3 5
Did you know...
The Library’s acquisitions budget is carefully allocated to ensure
that research and teaching at the University of Lethbridge are
well supported by Library resources. Funds are spent on scholarly
journals, databases, monographs (print and electronic), newspapers,
and films, among other materials. Most of the acquisitions budget is
allotted to electronic resource subscriptions—primarily for journal
literature. In many instances, annual subscription costs increase
at a rate significantly exceeding inflation indices. Consequently,
the Library’s Collections Work Team has the challenging task of
determining where funds can be saved to cover the increasing
costs of subscription resources. The graph below represents the
percentage increase in cost of some of our subscription resources
since 2015.
To be sure, these resources vary significantly in price. Naxos Music
Library, for example, increased in cost from 1,836 in 2015 to 106,678 to $122,205
during the same period. As most of our subscriptions are invoiced
in American dollars, the increases (especially from 2015 to 2016)
are partially due to exchange rate fluctuations. However, price hikes
demanded by scholarly publishers and other vendors have also
contributed significantly to increasing costs and are more worrisome
in the long term. The unsustainability of the current scholarly
publishing model poses an ongoing challenge for both academic
libraries and academe more broadly.
New Database: Maclean’s
Magazine Archive
After a successful trial in the Spring of 2018, the Library
purchased the Maclean’s Magazine Archive. Canada’s
leading news and general interest magazine provides a
unique perspective on both national and international
affairs. Topics include investigative reporting, opinion and
analysis on politics, economy and business, science and
technology, society, arts and culture, education and work. It
was initially known as The Business Magazine, then The Busy
Man’s Magazine, and changed to the current title, Maclean’s,
in 1911. Our subscription includes coverage from 1905 to
2015 with cover-to-cover imaging, presenting each issue
in its entirety as originally published (all fully searchable,
including advertisements).
Database Spotlight:
CARMA Video Library
The CARMA (Consortium for the Advancement of Research
Methods and Analysis) Video Library contains about
150 recorded webcasts of advanced training lectures
in research methods and data analysis relevant to all
disciplines. The library includes such topics as Estimating
Interaction Effects Using Multiple Regression, Cross Cultural
Research Methods, Doing Teams Research: Where, When,
How, and Why?, Meta analysis and Structural Equation
Modeling, and many, many more. Graduate students can
especially learn a lot about research techniques by viewing
these videos. In addition to the recordings, slides are
provided.
CARMA also has weekly live webcasts of new research
topics, which are later added to the recording library.
In addition to our subscription, U of L researchers get a
discount on their ‘short courses’, which include such things
as “Basics of R” and “Analysis of Big Data.”
Note: To access the CARMA Video Library, University
students and faculty must first register for an account
using their [email protected] email address.
Recent Publications & Presentations
David Scott contributed to a recently published scoping review that examined continuing care in rural Alberta. The team conducting the
review was led by Julia Brassolotto, a professor in the public health program.
Nicole Eva (Library) and Adriane MacDonald (Dhillon School of Business) participated in a panel discussion about open access and open
educational materials at the Canadian Roundtable on Academic Materials (CRAM) in Ottawa on October 23, 2018. They were invited
based on an article they published earlier this year in University Affairs.
Nicole Eva and Erin Shea (Ferguson Public Library) published Amplify Your Impact: An interview with Mark Aaron Polger, Editor of
Marketing Libraries Journal in Research and User Services Quarterly, 57(4), 251-253
Copyright Corner (September, 2019)
No full textCopyright Corner, September/October 2019
The INDU Report on the Statutory Review of the Copyright Act
In the previous column (January/February 2019) I sketched an overview of the review of the Copyright
Act conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
(INDU). Now that INDU has completed the review, in this issue we take a look at highlights of its report
delivered to Parliament in June.
It is notable that the first report on the statutory review was filed in May by the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage (CHPC), which had been invited by INDU to assist by investigating remuneration
models for artists and creative industries. The two reports are an interesting study in contrasts in how
they approach the central purpose of copyright – balancing just rewards for creators of original works
with good public access to those works for the encouragement of learning.
Among the voluminous evidence gathered by INDU over 2018 were 263 witness testimonies and 192
written briefs. The wide range of issues and perspectives addressed in the INDU report attests to the
Committee’s goal of understanding and taking into account the concerns of more than just large
corporate owners.1
The following are among INDU’s 36 recommendations, which, on the whole, reflect an even-handed
consideration of copyright’s public and private interests:
• Recommendation 4: develop consistent indicators and authoritative data on the economic
impacts of copyright legislation in Canada
• Recommendation 5: consult with Indigenous groups, experts, and other stakeholders on the
protection of traditional arts and cultural expressions
• Recommendation 6: if the copyright term is extended, consider amending the Copyright Act to
make copyright enforceable beyond the current term only for works that have been registered
• Recommendation 16: consider establishing facilitation between the educational sector and the
copyright collectives to build consensus towards the future of educational fair dealing in Canada
• Recommendation 18: amend section 29 of the Copyright Act to make the list of purposes
allowable under the fair dealing exception illustrative rather than exhaustive
• Recommendation 19: modernize copyright policy to allow circumvention of digital locks for non-infringing
uses of the content
On the key issue of educational fair dealing, the report makes this observation:
The Canadian publishing sector is struggling to adjust to market disruptions that predate and are
unrelated to amendments contained in the CMA. These disruptions will persist even if Parliament
removed every single exception added to the Act in 2012. The decline of collective licensing in
education has arguably more to do with technological change than it does with fair dealing.
(p.64)
1 For example, the report acknowledges each of six recommendations included in the brief submitted by the U of L.
At the same time, the report reveals uncertainty about how educators assess fair dealing:
Given that the fair dealing exception is normally applied on a case-by-case basis and in
consideration of a number of different factors, condoning the use of copyrighted content under
fair dealing on the basis of a bright-line criterion is questionable. (p. 64)
And in the face of variant approaches taken by educational institutions to address copyright compliance
and infringement, the report states the Committee found it “difficult to determine whether the
education sector has adopted adequate measures to prevent and discourage copyright infringement
since 2012.” (p. 64)
While characterizing how educational institutions assess non-infringing uses as “one-size-fits-all” seems
unfairly simplistic, the above excerpts suggest it could be useful for the institutions to collaborate on
articulating good practices that address copyright compliance mechanisms and measures. In general,
the INDU report offers a thoughtful and reasonably balanced assessment of the current functioning of
the Copyright Act. I hope it eventually receives the attention and timely follow-through from Parliament
that it deserves.
On a related note, another item to watch for in the coming months is a decision from the Federal Court
of Appeal (FCA) in the appeal of the 2017 Federal Court decision in the Access Copyright v. York
University case. The FCA hearing was held in March 2019, the central issues being the fairness of York’s
fair dealing guidelines (which are similar that of the U of L and other Canadian educational institutions)
and whether a tariff is mandatory once it is certified by the Copyright Board.
As always, if you could use some help with copyright matters in your teaching, research or other U of L
work, please feel free to contact me.
Rumi Graham
University Copyright Advisor
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 403-332-4472
Website: www.uleth.ca/copyrigh
miniata
No full textCastilleja miniata Douglas ex Hook.castilléjie rougeâtregreat red paintbrushTrail to Mount DarrahT. ChisholmS.E. facing slope, 1km N.E. from summit; grassy, rocky meadow1971Castilleja occidentalis, Penstemon confertus, Penstemon albertinus, Valeriana sitchensis, Heracleum maximum, Eriogonum umbellatum, Geranium viscosissimum, Carex sp., Ribes sp., Calochortus apiculatus, Sedum lanceolatum, Osmorhiza occidentalis>5
acaulis
No full textSilene acaulis (L.) Jacq.silène acaulemoss campionBovin LakeT. ChisholmW. ridge above Bovin Lake; red shale covered in lichen; high exposure to elements2296Antennaria umbrinella, Draba paysonii, Potentilla uniflora, Saxifraga bronchialis, Erigeron compositus>3
planifolia
No full textSalix planifolia Purshsaule à feuilles planestea-leaved willowBeaver Mines LakeT. ChisholmE. shore of lake; E of campsite road in moist ground1458Shepherdia canadensis, Populus tremuloides, Rosa sp., Maianthemum sp., Populus sp
idaeus
No full textRubus idaeus L.framboisier rougered raspberryMiddle Kootenay PassT. ChisholmTrailside heading N.E.; high exposure to elements, barren grey rocky shale substrate1910Penstemon ellipticus, Pinus contorta, Abies balsamea, Eriogonum ovalifolium, Eriogonum umbellatum, Heuchera cylindrica>3
androsaceum
No full textEriogonum androsaceum Benth.ériogone fausse-androsaceandrosace buckwheatLoaf MountainT. ChisholmS. facing slope on ridgeline just NE of summit; red shale covering open exposed ground of saddle2323Veronica wyomingensis, Heuchera parvifolia, Minuartia obtusiloba, Eriogonum ovalifolium, Potentilla diversifolia, Agoseris glauca, Silene acaulis, Packera contermina>3
condensata
No full textTownsendia condensata Parrytownsendie en coussinalpine townsendiaLocality, associated species and coordinates withheld (rare); contact the University of Lethbridge Herbarium ([email protected]) for more information.T. ChisholmRocky ridge1930 to 1887Locality, associated species and coordinates withheld (rare); contact the University of Lethbridge Herbarium ([email protected]) for more information.>25Found primarily in rocky areas of ridg