MLA 2015: Open Access and the Library Infrastructure

Open Access Roles for the Library – Anneliese S. Taylor

  • UCSF – 2nd highest recipient of NIH Funding
  • 2014 was when compliance reports went out and issues were identified
  • 160-170 consultation requests in response (~55 hours)
  • also reaching out via instruction sessions
  • provides monthly updates on webpage regarding compliance rate
  • UCSF Open Access Policy passed in 2012
  • UC-wide policy passed in 2013
  • Publication harvester live in October 2014
  • UCSF participation began in 2015
  • manual system = 1 article deposit; harvester system = 400 articles deposited
  • OA publishing fund with funds from Academic Senate
  • DataShare – open data repository for data searching; depositing is restricted to UCSF; the platform is format and subject agnostic, but not a curated system

Replicability and Reproducibility of Research Using an Open Data Set – Bart Ragon

  • Looked at the “The value of library and information services in patient care” dataset in ODUM
  • looked at the specific items of UpTodate, MD Consult,
  • role, age, and gender didn’t have any effect
  • challenges with the dataset
    • no codebook
    • tech download issues that required going back to data creators who had to go back to IT
    • age data collapsed into larger categories (0-45 vs 45+) to protect identities of participants — made it not possible for him to replicate the study results since he didn’t have the same raw data
  • in comparison to public access policy trends, we may be looking at being 10 years out before really regulating open data policies

Promoting Open Educational Resources and Other Alternatives to Traditional Textbooks – Lea Leininger

  • some matching between OER textbooks and topics; mostly helpful for Humanities
  • SPARC presentation along with bookstore representative
  • mini-grants provided for faculty to develop during 2015-2016 ($1k each)

When “How hard can it be?” becomes “a Sisyphean task”: Framing a data-sharing platform for developmental health outcomes – Cunera M. Buys, Pamela L. Shaw

  •  Data Repository Needs Assessment Team (DRNAT) = 6-month project
  • used Purdue Data Curation Profiles Toolkit for 5 researcher interviews
  • 3 out of 5 = data dictionary
  • 4 out of 5 = code book
  • although some had code books or data dictionaries, some still didn’t think the data was described enough to be understood by others
  • “scooping” concerns
  • literature review from July-Nov 2014
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s