of RLI are by no means all of the possible strategies, but taken together they
provide insights into how institutions and individuals can work collectively
to build a strong foundation that will enable content to be opened up for use.
Institutional Strategies
A recent development at the institutional
level has been the movement by faculty
groups to pass resolutions in support of
open access. The process of policy
development is highly dependent on the
governance structure at the particular
university and the wording of the final
resolution is necessarily a product of that
process. The most important aspect of this
movement is that the resolutions are being
led by faculty members. Research libraries
provide support and often help to
coordinate the activities, but the case for
openly accessible content is being made by
the scholar leader. In their article, Ada
Emmett and Town Peterson provide a
glimpse into the process at the University
of Kansas.
Another strategy being used at the
campus level is the development of open-
access (OA) funds. OA funds are set aside
by an institution to support publication
models that enable free, immediate, online
distribution of, and access to, scholarly
research. The late 2009 announcement of
the establishment of the Compact for
Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) increased interest in this strategy.
COPE encourages universities and research-funding agencies to develop
“durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for
articles written by [their] faculty and published in fee-based open-access
journals.” Greg Tananbaum of ScholarNext has written a practical guide for
RLI 269
2
Strategies for Opening Up Content
(
C O N T I N U E D
)
APRIL 2010 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC
Campus Open-Access Statements
from ARL Institutions
Boston University, February 2009
http://www.bu.edu/today/node/8320
Brigham Young University Instructional Psychology and Technology, November 2009
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1137#axzz0mLbfHi8M
Cornell University, May 2005
http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/resolution.html
Duke University, March 2010
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/category/open-access-and-institutional-
repositories/
Harvard University
Business School, February 2010
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, February 2008
Graduate School of Education, June 2009
Kennedy School of Government, March 2009
Law School, May 2008
http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/policytexts.php
University of Kansas, April 2009, revised February 2010
http://www.lib.ku.edu/scholcomm/openaccess/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 2009
http://info-libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/faculty-and-researchers/mit-faculty-open-access-policy/
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, April 2010
http://www.unl.edu/libr/news/documents/UNL_IR_resolution.pdf
University of Oregon Department of Romance Languages, June 2009
http://insideoregon.uoregon.edu/romance-languages-adopts-open-access-mandate/
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, April 2010
http://facultysenate.siuc.edu/0410atta.pdf
http://facultysenate.siuc.edu/0410attb.pdf
Previous Page Next Page