Open access dissemination challenges: a case study

Abstract

Purpose-This paper explores dissemination, broadly considered, of an open access database as part of a librarian-faculty collaboration currently in progress.Design/methodology/approach-Dissemination of an online database by librarians is broadly considered, including metadata optimization for multiple access points and user notification methods.Findings-Librarians address open access dissemination challenges by investigating search engine optimization and seeking new opportunities for dissemination on the web. Differences in library metadata formats inhibit metadata optimization and need resolution.Research limitations/implications-The collaboration is in progress and many of the ideas and conclusions listed have not been implemented.Practical implications-Libraries should consider their role in scholarly publishing, develop workflows to enable it, and extend their efforts to the web.Originality/value-This paper contributes to the scant literature on dissemination by libraries, and discusses dissemination challenges encountered by a non-peer reviewed, dynamic scholarly resource.

The Open Access Divide

“…Academic librarians as a group of digital facilitators also retain a different view of OA achievements from that of OA advocates. When OA advocates are enthusiastically and unanimously cheerful about the development of the scholarship reforms, librarians and involved information professionals are relatively cautious and pay more attention to challenges faced in practice [50][51][52][53][54][55]. This vision disparity in OA assessment may be caused by their different roles in the campaign: advocates have more access to diverse resources and thus are able to draw a larger picture and consider scholarly communication as an entire system, while librarian practitioners gain their opinions generally out of their own experience in individual projects.…”

An examination of information ethics standards in the management of open access electronic information resources (OAEIR) by Zimbabwean university libraries.

“…The utilisation of ICTs by LIS professionals worldwide has proved beyond reasonable doubt that a library could perform better through these enhanced facilities, which adequately provide access to the content of the library. Young (2009) noted that the electronic environment had brought about a revolution in scholarly publishing, as a great number of scholarly resources were finding their way onto the web. This literature was being published, and access was provided from either electronic databases of an online journal or in other platforms such as the digital library and IR as part of a new wave of scholarship.…”

“…These had a bearing on the organising and indexing, if any, LIS professionals were permitted to execute. Young (2009) saw metadata application and careful cataloguing by LIS professionals as the only way they could optimise the accessibility of electronic information resources to interest the resource users. However, the provision of access best known by LIS professionals was through traditional cataloguing using machine-readable cataloguing (MARC) records (Young, 2009, p. 95).…”

“…As ICTs continued to power library resource provision in the current contemporary library environment, increased importance in managing electronic resources was placed on effective information dissemination by LIS professionals to library clients. However, a literature search revealed that little research had been published on disseminating OAEIR (Young, 2009). While information dissemination was an integral role of LIS professionals from the earliest period through properly catalogued records, publishers took up part of this function (Young, 2009, p. 95).…”

“…However, though OA was an important creation and objective for libraries, it has raised many ethical dilemmas associated with library cataloguing standards, lack of additional funding and skills for LIS professionals to cope with the collection and organisation of this emerging format (Echterling, 2019). Additionally, this was also highlighted by Young (2009), who noted that the dissemination of OAEIR had presented LIS professionals with the most difficult challenge in the concept of the OA movement. Echterling (2019) stated that the OA publishing model had presented enormously different membership requirements on behalf of libraries compared with its predecessor model, the conventional (print and proprietary electronic resources) publishing model.…”