Monthly Archives: October 2009

Recap of TU Delft OCW Seminar

In August OEN reported on an upcoming OCW seminar at Tu Delft. Willem Van Valkenburg has a new post giving a recap on the seminar. From the post:

It was an interesting seminar with a good programme and interesting discussions. It gave me a lot of energy to further develop our TU Delft OpenCourseWare.

Update: Presentation recordings available at TU Delft.

Research on User needs study on Open Access Book Publishing

As part of the OAPEN project Prof.dr. Paul Rutten and Drs. Janneke Adema (Leiden University, The Netherlands) have carried out a study on user needs in relation to open access book publishing within the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS).

The study will be made available through OAPEN’s website, www.oapen.org, by the end of October. Below are some of the main findings of the report.

Main Findings

.       Print remains important in HSS although a trend has been established to more digital consumption (more screen reading and E-Book use), more informal online communication (blogs and wiki’s) and a small rise of scholarly writing specifically adapted to the digital environment. It is felt print and E-Books will coexist and will be used side-by-side for the time being.

.       Accessibility and dissemination of scholarly content are key. It is felt Open Access promotes both and does not necessarily harm the quality of publications. Accessibility also opens research up further, enabling content enhancement and connections (links) between publications. A good and easy way to use search function remains indispensable.

.       In the online environment filter and selection mechanisms such as peer review remain of the utmost importance to establish quality, as are (publishers) brands and (scholarly) reputations. It is felt Open Access monographs should pay extra attention to quality control to ensure their legitimacy.

.       Experiments with new forms of collaboration and new (Open Access) business models in book publishing are necessary. The research shows users are still skeptical about the sustainability of these kinds of models but feel experiments are essential to save the monograph from the traditional (print) publishing model that is no longer sustainable.

The research is based on a state of the art literature study, round table discussions, one-on-one interviews across Europe, and an online survey.

Open Access Bill Flounders

Bob Grant at TheScientist.com is reporting that the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) of 2009 (S.1373) is stalled in committee. The problem is that legislative efforts are directed towards healthcare, and the bill will probably remain stalled until that debate is solved. From the article:

It [the bill] directs 11 federal agencies with extramural research budgets greater than $100 million per year — including the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and NASA — to deposit published manuscripts resulting from tax-payer funding in a digital repository that is accessible by the general public no later than six months after the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Response to Darthmouth Op-Ed

Emily Johnson has posted an op-ed piece against OCW in Dartmouth college paper. In the article Johnson argues that OCW in not truly learning, which requires a teacher to facilitate. The blog Parker Writes has posted a response. From the response:

…the whole point of OCW is that it expands learning beyond the university.

The “Liberation” of Textbooks

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has posted an article on the “liberation” of textbooks. It discusses the growing movement of open textbooks using the Collaborative Statistics textbook at De Anza college. From the article:

“My mom is a single parent. My father died three years ago. If I can save something, it’s really nice. If I really needed it, my mom would pay for it. But if I can save that money, it’s a huge help.”

Google Book Settlement News 10/9/09

Motoko Rich at The New York Times: Media Decoder Blog is reporting that a new Google Book Settlement is due Nov. 9. The terms of the new settlement are unknown. From the post:

…the parties “have worked on a daily basis assiduously” to modify the settlement and hoped to submit an amended document to the court in early November, with a target date of late December or early January for a final hearing on the settlement.

Thanks to Gavin Baker at Open Access News for the link.

Guide to OA Models

Jennifer Howard at The Chronicle for Higher Education: The Wired Campus is reporting that new guide to making a journal open access is now available. The guide, titled “Income Models for Supporting Open Access” was published through SPARC.

Comparing US and Canada Open Data Policies

David Eaves has a new post comparing US and Canadian open data policies. Eaves suggests that the US government has opened its data further than Canada. From the post:

As a first principle, if Canadians care about open data we will need to begin fostering norms in our government, among ourselves, and in our politicians, that support the idea that what our government creates (especially in terms of research and data) is ours and that we should not only have unfettered access to it, but the right to analyze and repurpose it. The point here isn’t just that this is a right, but that open data enhances democracy, increases participation and civic engagement and strengthens our economy.

Open Textbooks and the Public Option

Karen Fasimpaur has a new post discussing comparisons made between open textbooks and a public option for healthcare. Fasimpaur refutes the notion that open textbooks will eliminate commercial offerings. From the article:

An important sidenote is that these proposed initiatives do not aim to subsume commercial initiatives. Many, in fact, just try to assure that public funds, such as federal grants, that are already directed at materials development result in publicly-accessible materials.

Concerns About the Current Direction of Creative Commons

Andres Guadamuz has a new post on the state of the Creative Commons community. Guadamuz indicates that he is feeling “temporary disillusionment” regarding the direction of the community. From the post:

Another problem that I felt (completely centred on my very subjective and limited perception), was that the movement was becoming way to “cool-centric” for its own good. I could not help but feeling that in some instances substance was being sacrificed for image. Perhaps in order to bolster its own credentials with the more fashionable end of the Web 2.0 revolution, CC played up this cool image that might turn some people off, and may have been the source of detractors accusing Creative Commons of being mostly hype, or a fad.