1,720,967 research outputs found
RoMEO Studies 2: How academics wish to protect their open-access research paper
No full textThis paper is the second in a series of studies (see Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, and S. Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation. 59(3) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions, and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. Concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreement
RoMEO Studies 5: IPR issues for OAI Data and Service Providers
No full textThis paper is the fifth in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It reports the results of two surveys of OAI Data Providers (DPs) and Service Providers (SPs) with regards to the rights issues they face. It finds that very few DPs have rights agreements with depositing authors and that there is no standard approach to the creation of rights metadata. The paper considers the rights protection afforded individual and collections of metadata records under UK Law and contrasts this with DP and SP’s views on the rights status of metadata and how they wish to protect it. The majority of DP and SPs believe that a standard way of describing both the rights status of documents and of metadata would be usefu
Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education
Full text linkThis study identified three models for open access provision in the UK: (a) the centralised model, where e-prints of articles are first deposited directly into a national archive and then made accessible to users and service providers; (b) the distributed model, where e-prints are deposited in any one of a distributed network of OAI-compliant institutional, subject-based and open-access journal archives, whose metadata are then harvested and made accessible to users and service providers; and (c) the model we have termed the ‘harvesting’ model, a variant of the distributed model in which the harvested metadata are first improved, standardised or enhanced before being made accessible to users and service providers. In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the ‘wrong way round’ with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives. The study therefore recommends the ‘harvesting’ model [(c) above], constituting a UK national service founded upon creating an interoperable network of OAI-compliant, distributed, institution-based e-print archives. Such a service, based on harvesting metadata (and, later, full-text) from distributed, institution-based e-print archives and open access journals would be cheaper to implement and would more effectively garner the nation’s scholarly research output. The model also permits further enhancement of the metadata to provide improved features and functionality
RoMEO Studies 4: An analysis of Journal publishers' Copyright Agreements
Full text linkThis article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers’ copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self-archiving. 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper. 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self-archiving as prior publication. 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self-archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self-archiving could take place. The article concludes that author-publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both partie
RoMEO Studies 6: Rights metadata for open-archiving
Full text linkThis is the final study in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It reports the results of a survey of 542 academic authors showing the level of protection required for their open-access research papers. It then describes the selection of an appropriate means of expressing those rights through metadata and the resulting choice of Creative Commons licences. Finally it outlines proposals for communicating rights metadata via the Open Archives Initiative’s Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)
Recommended from our members
RoMEO Studies I: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving
No full textThis is the first in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the IPR issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It considers the claims for copyright ownership in research papers by universities, academics, and publishers by drawing on the literature, a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements. This paper concludes that self-archiving is not best supported by copyright transfer to publishers. It recommends that universities assert their interest in copyright ownership in the long term, that academics retian rights in the short term, and that publishers consider new ways of protecting the value they add through journal publishing. This article has been published in the Journal of Documentation, 59 (3): 243-277
Linking electronic journals - Lessons from the Open Journal project
Full text linkThe Open Journal project has completed its three year period of funding by the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) programme (Rusbridge 1998). During that time, the number of journals that are available electronically leapt from a few tens to a few thousand. Some of these journals are now developing the sort of features the project has been advocating, in particular the use of links within journals, between different primary journals, with secondary journals data, and to non-journal sources. Assessing the achievements of the project and considering some of the difficulties it faced, we report on the different approaches to linking that the project developed, and summarise the important user responses that indicate what works and what does not. Looking ahead, there are signs of change, not just to simple linking within journals but to schemes in which links are the basis of "distributed" journals, where information may be shared and documents built from different sources. The significance has yet to be appreciated, but this would be a major change from printed journals. If projects such as this and others have provided the initial impetus, the motivation for distributed journals comes, perhaps surprisingly, from within certain parts of the industry, as the paper shows
Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education
Full text linkA study carried out for the UK Joint
Information Systems Committee examined models for the
provision of access to material in institutional and
subject-based archives and in open access journals. Their
relative merits were considered, addressing not only
technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by
authors) can be achieved – an essential factor for an
effective e-print delivery service (for users). A "harvesting" model is recommended, where the metadata of articles deposited in distributed archives are harvested, stored and enhanced by a national service. This model has major advantages over the alternatives of a national centralized service or a completely decentralized one. Options for the implementation of a service based on the harvesting model are presented
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
