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