You are here

Feed aggregator

DuraSpace News: New Open Source Preservation Solution—Run Archivematica 1.3.0 Locally or in DuraCloud

planet code4lib - Mon, 2014-10-27 00:00

Archivematica 1.3.0 Features Full DuraCloud Integration

Cynthia Ng: Mozilla Festival Day 2: Webmaking in Higher Education

planet code4lib - Sun, 2014-10-26 15:08
We had a short session on looking at how we might use webmaker in a higher education context. Facilitator Helen Lee Open (Free) Tools We use github firefox webmaker drupal wordpress/buddypress Linux Arduino Pinterest & other social media platforms FLAC Why They Are Awesome content is shareable, reusable/remixable easy to use, quick to do creates online […]

Cynthia Ng: Mozilla Festival Day 2: Notes from Having Fun and Sharing Gratitude in Distributed Online Communities

planet code4lib - Sun, 2014-10-26 13:02
Interesting session on Having Fun and Sharing Gratitude in Distributed Online Communities. Here are some notes. Facilitators J.Nathan Matias (MIT Media Lab / Awesome Knowledge Foundation) @natematias – research on gratitude Vanessa Gennarelli (P2PU) – build communities online Fewer options to celebrate things together in distributed communities. Examples: Yammer Praise KudoNow (performance review) Wikipedia Thanks (for […]

Open Knowledge Foundation: Let’s imagine a creative format for Open Access

planet code4lib - Sun, 2014-10-26 10:34

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Celya Gruson-Daniel from Open Knowledge France and reports from “Open Access Xsprint”, a creative workshop held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris – as announced here.

More and more information is available online about Open Access. However it’s difficult to process all this content when one is a busy PhD Student or researcher. Moreover, people already informed and convinced are often the main spectators. The question thus becomes : How to spread the world about Open Access to a large audience ? (researchers, students but also people who are not directly concerned). With the HackYourPhD community, we have been developing initiatives to invent new creative formats and to raise curiosity and/or interest about Open Access. Open Access Week was a perfect occasion to propose workshops to experiment with those kinds of formats.

An Open Access XSprint at La Paillasse

During the Open Access Week, HackYourPhD with Sharelex design a creative workshop called the Open Access Xsprint (X standing for media). The evening was held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris with the financial support of a Generation Open Grant (Right to Research Coalition)

The main objective was to produce appealing guidelines about the legal aspects and issues of Open Access through innovative formats such as livesketching, or comics. HackYourPhD has been working with Sharelex on this topic for several months. Sharelex aims at providing access to the law to everyone with the use of a collaborative workshop and forum. A first content has been produced in French and was used during the Open Access XSprint.

One evening to invent creative formats about Open Access

These sessions brings together illustrators, graphic designers, students, researchers. After a short introduction to get to know each other, the group discussed about the meaning of Open Access and its definition. First Livesketching and illustration emerged.

In a second time, two groups were composed. One group worked on the different meaning of Open Access with a focus on the Creative Commons licences.

The other group discussed about the development of the different Open Access models and their evolution (Green Open Access, 100% Gold Open Access, hybrid Journal, Diamond, Platinum). The importance of Evaluation was raised. It appears to be one of the brakes in the Open Access transition.

After an open buffet, each group presented their work. A future project was proposed. It will consist of personalizing a scientific article and inventing its different “”life””. An ingenious way to present the different Open Access Models.

Explore also our storify “Open Access XSprint”

Next Step: Improvisation Theatre and Open Access

To conclude the Open Access Week, another event will be organized on October 24 in a science center (Espace Pierre Gilles de Gennes) with HackYourPhD and Sharelex, and the financial support of Couperin/FOSTER.

This event aims at exploring new format to communicate about Open Access. An improvisation theatral company will participate to this event. The presentations of different speakers about Open Access will be interspersed with short improvisation. The main topic of this evening will be the stereotypes or false ideas about Open Access. Bring an entertaining and original view is a way to discuss about Open Access for a large public, and maybe a starter to help them to become curious and to continue exploring this crucial topic for researchers and all citizen.

Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Open Knowledge Foundation: Nature-branded journal goes Open Access-only: Can we celebrate already?

planet code4lib - Sun, 2014-10-26 10:23

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Miguel Said from Open Knowledge Brazil and is a translated version of the original that can be found the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's blog.

Nature Publishing Group reported recently that in October, its Nature Communications journal will become open access only: all articles published after this date will be available for reading and re-using, free of charge (by default they will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution license, allowing virtually every type of use). Nature Communications was a hybrid journal, publishing articles with the conventional, proprietary model, or as open access if the author paid a fee; but now it will be exclusively open access. The publishing group that owns Science recently also revealed an open access only journal, Science Advances – but with a default CC-NC license, which prevents commercial usages.

So we made it: the greatest bastions of traditional scientific publishing are clearly signaling support for open access. Can we pop the champagne already?

This announcement obviously has positive aspects: for example, lives can be saved in poor countries where doctors may have access to the most up-to-date scientific information – information that was previously behind a paywall, unaffordable for most of the Global South. Papers published under open access also tend to achieve more visibility, and that can benefit the research in countries like Brazil, where I live.

The overall picture, however, is more complex than it seems at first sight. In both cases, Nature and Science adopt a specific model of open access: the so-called "gold model", where publication in journals is usually subject to a fee paid by authors of approved manuscripts (the article processing charge, or APC). In this model, access to articles is thus open to readers and users, but access to the publication space is closed, in a sense, being only available to the authors who can afford the fee. In the case of Nature Communications, the APC is $5000, certainly among the highest in any journal (in 2010, the largest recorded APC was US $ 3900 – according to the abstract of this article… which I cannot read, as it is behind a paywall).

This amounts to two months of the net salary of a professor in state universities in Brazil (those in private universities would have to work even longer, as their pay is generally lower). Who is up for spending 15%+ of their annual income to publish a single article? Nature reported that it will waive the fee for researchers from a list of countries (which does not include Brazil, China, India, Pakistan and Libya, among others), and for researchers from elsewhere on a "case by case" basis – but they did not provide any further objective information about this policy. (I suspect it is better not to count on the generosity of a publisher that charges us $32 to read a single article, or $18 for a single piece of correspondence [!] from its journals.)

On the other hand, the global trend seems to be that the institutions with which researchers are affiliated (the universities where they work, or the scientific foundations that fund their research) bear part of these charges, partly because of the value these institutions attach to publishing in high-impact journals. In Brazil, for example, FAPESP (one of the largest research foundations in Latin America) provides a specific line of funding to cover these fees, and also considers them as eligible expenses for project grants and scholarships. As it happens, however, the funds available for this kind of support are limited, and in general they are not awarded automatically; in the example of FAPESP, researchers compete heavily for funding, and one of the main evaluation criteria is – as in so many situations in academic bureaucracy today – the researcher's past publication record:

Analysis criteria [...] a) Applicant's Academic Record a.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and / or technological production. Important elements for this analysis are: list of publications in journals with selective editorial policy; books or book chapters [...]

Because of this reason, the payment of APCs by institutions has a good chance of feeding the so called "cumulative advantage" feedback loop in which researchers that are already publishing in major journals get more money and more chances to publish, while the underfunded remain that way.

The advancement of open access via the gold model also involves another risk: the proliferation of predatory publishers. They are the ones that make open access publishing (with payment by authors or institutions) a business where profit is maximized through the drastic reduction of quality standards in peer review – or even the virtual elimination of any review: if you pay, you are published. The risk is that on the one hand, predatory publishing can thrive because it satisfies the productivist demands imposed on researchers (whose careers are continually judged under the light of the publish or perish motto); and on the other hand, that with the gold model the act of publishing is turned into a commodity (to be sold to researchers), marketable under high profit rates - even without the intellectual property-based monopoly that was key to the economic power mustered by traditional scientific publishing houses. In this case, the use of a logic that treats scientific articles strictly as commodities results in pollution and degradation of humankind's body of scientific knowledge, as predatory publishers are fundamentally interested in maximizing profits: the quality of articles is irrelevant, or only a secondary factor.

Naturally, I do not mean to imply that Nature has become a predatory publisher; but one should not ignore that there is a risk of a slow corruption of the review process (in order to make publishing more profitable), particularly among those publishing houses that are "serious" but do not have as much market power as Nature. And, as we mentioned, on top of that is the risk of proliferation of bogus journals, in which peer review is a mere facade. In the latter case, unfortunately this is not a hypothetical risk: the shady "business model" of predatory publishing has already been put in place in hundreds of journals.

Are there no alternatives to this commodified, market-oriented logic currently in play in scientific publishing? Will this logic (and its serious disadvantages) be always dominant, regardless if the journal is "proprietary" or open access? Well, not necessarily: even within the gold model, there are promising initiatives that do not adhere strictly to this logic – that is the case of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), an open access publishing house that charges for publication, but works as a nonprofit organization; because of that, it has no reason to eliminate quality criteria in the selection of articles in order to obtain more profits from APCs. Perhaps this helps explain the fact that PLOS has a broader and more transparent fee waiver policy for poor researchers (or poor countries) than the one offered by Nature. And finally, it is worth noting that the gold model is not the only open access model: the main alternative is the "green model", based on institutional repositories. This model involves a number of challenges regarding coordination and funding, but it also tends not to follow a strictly market-oriented logic, and to be more responsive to the interests of the academic community. The green model is hardly a substitute for the gold one (even because it is not designed to cover the costs of peer review), but it is important that we join efforts to strengthen it and avoid a situation where the gold model becomes the only way for scientists and scholars in general to release their work under open access.

(My comments here are directly related to my PhD thesis on commons and commodification, where these issues are explored in a bit more detail – especially in the Introduction and in Chapter 4, pp. 17-20 and 272-88; unfortunately, it's only available in Portuguese as of now. This post was born out of discussions in the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's mailing list; thanks to Ewout ter Haar for his help with the text.)

Cynthia Ng: Mozilla Festival Day 1: Closing Keynotes

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 17:35
We ended the first day with closing plenary featuring numerous people. Marc Surman was back on stage to help set the context of the evening talks. 10 5 minute talks, relay race. Mobile and the Future Emerging Markets and Adoption Chris Locke emerging markets in explosion of adoption of mobile social good example: mobile to […]

Karen Coyle: Citations get HOT

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 17:07
The Public Library of Science research section, PLOSLabs (ploslabs.org) has announced some very interesting news about the work that they are doing on citations, which they are calling "Rich Citations".

Citations are the ultimate "linked data" of academia, linking new work with related works. The problem is that the link is human-readable only and has to be interpreted by a person to understand what the link means. PLOS Labs have been working to make those citations machine-expressive, even though they don't natively provide the information needed for a full computational analysis.

Given what one does have in a normal machine-readable document with citations, they are able to pull out an impressive amount of information:
  • What section the citation is found in. There is some difference in meaning whether a citation is found in the "Background" section of an article, or in the "Methodology" section. This gives only a hint to the meaning of the citation, but it's more than no information at all.
  • How often a resource is cited in the article. This could give some weight to its importance to the topic of the article.
  • What resources are cited together. Whenever a sentence ends with "[3][7][9]", you at least know that those three resources equally support what is being affirmed. That creates a bond between those resources.
  • ... and more
As an open access publisher, they also want to be able to take users as directly as possible to the cited resources. For PLOS publications, they can create a direct link. For other resources, they make use of the DOI to provide links. Where possible, they reveal the license of cited resources, so that readers can know which resources are open access and which are pay-walled.

This is just a beginning, and their demo site, appropriately named "alpha," uses their rich citations on a segment of the PLOS papers. They also have an API that developers can experiment with.

I was fortunate to be able to spend a day recently at their Citation Hackathon where groups hacked on ongoing aspects of this work. Lots of ideas floated around, including adding abstracts to the citations so a reader could learn more about a resource before retrieving it. Abstracts also would add search terms for those resources not held in the PLOS database. I participated in a discussion about coordinating Wikidata citations and bibliographies with the PLOS data.

Being able to datamine the relationships inherent in the act of citation is a way to help make visible and actionable what has long been the rule in academic research, which is to clearly indicate upon whose shoulders you are standing. This research is very exciting, and although the PLOS resources will primarily be journal articles, there are also books in their collection of citations. The idea of connecting those to libraries, and eventually connecting books to each other through citations and bibliographies, opens up some interesting research possibilities.

Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Access Week in Nepal

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 16:23

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world.

Open Access Week was celebrated for the first time in Nepal for the opening 2 days: October 20, 21. The event, which was led by newly founded Open Access Nepal, and supported by EIFL and R2RC, featured a series of workshops, presentation, and peer to peer discussions and training by country leaders in Open Access, Open Knowledge, and Open Data including a 3 hour workshop on Open Science and Collaborative Research by Open Knowledge Nepal on the second day.

Open Access Nepal is a student led initiative that mostly includes students of MBBS. Most of the audience of Open Access Week celebrations here, hence, included med students, but engineering students, management students, librarians, professionals, and academics were also well represented. Participants discussed open access developments in Nepal and their roles in promoting and advancing open access.

EIFL and Right to Research Coalition provided financial support for the Open Access Week in Nepal. EIFL Open Access Program Manager Iryna Kuchma attended the conference as speaker and facilitator of workshops.

Open Knowledge Nepal hosted an interactive session on Open Science and Collaborative Research on the second day of two. The session we led by Kshitiz Khanal, Team Leader of Open Access / Open Science for Open Knowledge Nepal with support from Iryna Kuchma and Nikesh Balami, Team Leader of Open Government Data. About 8-10 Open Access experts of the country were present inside the hall to assist participants. The session began a half an hour before lunch where participants were first asked to brainstorm till lunch was over about what they think Open Science and Collaborative Research is, and the challenges relevant to Open Access that they have faced / might face in their Research endeavors. The participants were seated in round tables in groups of 7-8 persons, making a total of 5 groups.

After lunch, one team member from each group took turns in the front to present the summary of their brain-storming in colored chart papers. Participants came up with near exact definitions and reflected the troubles researchers in the country have been facing regarding Open Access. As we can expect of industrious students, some groups impressed the session hosts and experts with interesting graphical illustrations.

Iryna followed the presentations by her presentation where she introduced the concept, principles, and examples related to Open Science. Kshitiz followed Iryna with his presentation on Collaborative Research.

Session on Collaborative Research featured industry – academia collaborations facilitated by government. Collaborative Research needs more attention in Nepal as World Bank’s data of Nepal shows that total R&D investment is only equivalent to 0.3% of total GDP. Lambert Toolkit, created by the Intellectual Property Office of the UK, was also discussed. The toolkit provides agreement samples for industry – university collaborations, multi–party consortiums and few decision guides for such collaborations. The session also introduced version control and discussed simple web based tools for Collaborative Research like Google Docs, Etherpads, Dropbox, Evernote, Skype etc.

On the same day, Open Nepal also hosted a workshop about open data, and a session on Open Access Button was hosted by the organizers. Sessions in the previous day included sessions that enlightened the audience about Introduction to Open Access, Open Access Repositories, and growing Open Access initiatives all over the world.

This event dedicated to Open Access in Nepal was well received in the Open Communities of Nepal which has mostly concerned themselves with Open Data, Open Knowledge, and Open Source Software. A new set of audience became aware of the philosophy of Open. This author believes the event was a success story.

Nicole Engard: IL2014: More Library Mashups Signing/Talk

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 14:03

I’m headed to Monterey for Internet Librarian this weekend. Don’t miss my talk on Monday afternoon followed by the book signing for More Library Mashups.

From Information Today Inc:

This October, Information Today, Inc.’s most popular authors will be at Internet Librarian 2014. For attendees, it’s the place to meet the industry’s top authors and purchase signed copies of their books at a special 40% discount.

The following authors will be signing at the Information Today, Inc., on Monday, October 27 from 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. during the Grand Opening Reception

The post IL2014: More Library Mashups Signing/Talk appeared first on What I Learned Today....

Related posts:

  1. Heading to Internet Librarian!
  2. Call for Chapters: More Library Mashups
  3. Information Today Inc. Book Sale

Cynthia Ng: Mozilla Festival Day 1: CC Tools for Makers

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 13:39
Creative Commons folks hosted a discussion on barriers and possible solutions to publishing and using CC licensed content. Facilitators Ryan Merkley (CEO) Matt Lee (Tech Lead) Ali Al Dallal (Mozilla Foundation) Our Challenge our tech is old, user needs are unmet (can be confusing, don’t know how to do attribution) focus on publishing vs. sharing […]

Cynthia Ng: Mozilla Festival Day 1: Notes from Opening Plenery

planet code4lib - Sat, 2014-10-25 09:16
Start of Mozilla Festival 2014 with opening circle. CoderDojo Mary Moloney, Global CEO @marydunph @coderdojo global community of free programming clubs for young people each one of you is a giant, because you understand technology and the options it can give people how can I reach down to a young person and put them on […]

Galen Charlton: Testing Adobe Digital Editions 4.0.1, round 2

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 21:04

Yesterday I did some testing of version 4.0.1 of Adobe Digital Editions and verified that it is now using HTTPS when sending ebook usage data to Adobe’s server adelogs.adobe.com.

Of course, because the HTTPS protocol encrypts the datastream to that server, I couldn’t immediately verify that ADE was sending only the information that the privacy statement says it is.

Emphasis is on the word “immediately”.  If you want to find out what a program is sending via HTTPS to a remote server, there are ways to get in the middle.  Here’s how I did this for ADE:

  1. I edited the hosts file to refer “adelogs.adobe.com” to the address of a server under my control.
  2. I used the CA.pl script from openssl to create a certificate authority of my very own, then generated an SSL certificate for “adelogs.adobe.com” signed by that CA.
  3. I put the certificate for my new certificate authority into the trusted root certificates store on my Windows 7 deskstop.
  4. I put the certificate in place on my webserver and wrote a couple simple CGI scripts to emulate the ADE logging data collector and capture what got sent to them.

I then started up ADE and flipped through a few pages of an ebook purchased from Kobo.  Here’s an example of what is now getting sent by ADE (reformatted a bit for readability):

"id":"F5hxneFfnj/dhGfJONiBeibvHOIYliQzmtOVre5yctHeWpZOeOxlu9zMUD6C+ExnlZd136kM9heyYzzPt2wohHgaQRhSan/hTU+Pbvo7ot9vOHgW5zzGAa0zdMgpboxnhhDVsuRL+osGet6RJqzyaXnaJXo2FoFhRxdE0oAHYbxEX3YjoPTvW0lyD3GcF2X7x8KTlmh+YyY2wX5lozsi2pak15VjBRwl+o1lYQp7Z6nbRha7wsZKjq7v/ST49fJL", "h":"4e79a72e31d24b34f637c1a616a3b128d65e0d26709eb7d3b6a89b99b333c96e", "d":[ { "d":"ikN/nu8S48WSvsMCQ5oCrK+I6WsYkrddl+zrqUFs4FSOPn+tI60Rg9ZkLbXaNzMoS9t6ACsQMovTwW5F5N8q31usPUo6ps9QPbWFaWFXaKQ6dpzGJGvONh9EyLlOsbJM" }, { "d":"KR0EGfUmFL+8gBIY9VlFchada3RWYIXZOe+DEhRGTPjEQUm7t3OrEzoR3KXNFux5jQ4mYzLdbfXfh29U4YL6sV4mC3AmpOJumSPJ/a6x8xA/2tozkYKNqQNnQ0ndA81yu6oKcOH9pG+LowYJ7oHRHePTEG8crR+4u+Q725nrDW/MXBVUt4B2rMSOvDimtxBzRcC59G+b3gh7S8PeA9DStE7TF53HWUInhEKf9KcvQ64=" }, { "d":"4kVzRIC4i79hhyoug/vh8t9hnpzx5hXY/6g2w8XHD3Z1RaCXkRemsluATUorVmGS1VDUToDAvwrLzDVegeNmbKIU/wvuDEeoCpaHe+JOYD8HTPBKnnG2hfJAxaL30ON9saXxPkFQn5adm9HG3/XDnRWM3NUBLr0q6SR44bcxoYVUS2UWFtg5XmL8e0+CRYNMO2Jr8TDtaQFYZvD0vu9Tvia2D9xfZPmnNke8YRBtrL/Km/Gdah0BDGcuNjTkHgFNph3VGGJJy+n2VJruoyprBA0zSX2RMGqMfRAlWBjFvQNWaiIsRfSvjD78V7ofKpzavTdHvUa4+tcAj4YJJOXrZ2hQBLrOLf4lMa3N9AL0lTdpRSKwrLTZAFvGd8aQIxL/tPvMbTl3kFQiM45LzR1D7g==" }, { "d":"bSNT1fz4szRs/qbu0Oj45gaZAiX8K//kcKqHweUEjDbHdwPHQCNhy2oD7QLeFvYzPmcWneAElaCyXw+Lxxerht+reP3oExTkLNwcOQ2vGlBUHAwP5P7Te01UtQ4lY7Pz" } ]

In other words, it’s sending JSON containing… I’m not sure.

The values of the various keys in that structure are obviously Base 64-encoded, but when run through a decoder, the result is just binary data, presumably the result of another layer of encryption.

Thus, we haven’t actually gotten much further towards verifying that ADE is sending only the data they claim to.  That packet of data could be describing my progress reading that book purchased from Kobo… or it could be sending something else.

That extra layer of encryption might be done as protection against a real man-in-the-middle attack targeted at Adobe’s log server — or it might be obfuscating something else.

Either way, the result remains the same: reader privacy is not guaranteed. I think Adobe is now doing things a bit better than they were when they released ADE 4.0, but I could be wrong.

If we as library workers are serious about protection patron privacy, I think we need more than assurances — we need to be able to verify things for ourselves. ADE necessarily remains in the “unverified” column for now.

Nicole Engard: Bookmarks for October 24, 2014

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 20:30

Today I found the following resources and bookmarked them on <a href=

  • Klavaro Klavaro is just another free touch typing tutor program. We felt like to do it because we became frustrated with the other options, which relied mostly on some few specific keyboards. Klavaro intends to be keyboard and language independent, saving memory and time (and money).

Digest powered by RSS Digest

The post Bookmarks for October 24, 2014 appeared first on What I Learned Today....

Related posts:

  1. My new keyboard
  2. Learn a New Language
  3. Track Prices on Amazon with RSS

CrossRef: CrossRef and Inera Recognized at New England Publishing Collaboration Awards Ceremony

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 19:53

On Tuesday evening, 21 October 2014, Bookbuilders of Boston named the winners of the first New England Publishing Collaboration (NEPCo) Awards. From a pool of ten finalists, NEPCo judges October Ivins (Ivins eContent Solutions), Eduardo Moura (Jones & Bartlett Learning), Alen Yen (iFactory), and Judith Rosen of Publishers Weekly selected the following:

  • First Place: Inera, Inc., collaborating with CrossRef

  • Second Place (Tie): Digital Science, collaborating with portfolio companies; and NetGalley, collaborating with the American Booksellers Association

  • Third Place: The Harvard Common Press, collaborating with portfolio companies

Based on an embrace of disruption and the need to transform the traditional value chain of content creation, the New England Publishing Collaboration (NEPCo) Awards showcase results achieved by two or more organizations working as partners. Other companies short-listed for the awards this year were Cenveo Publisher Services, Firebrand Technologies, Focal Press (Taylor & Francis), Hurix Systems, The MIT Press, and StoryboardThat.

Criteria for the awards included, results achieved,industry significance,depth of collaboration, and presentation.

An audience voting component was included--Digital Science was the overall winner among audience members.

Keynote speaker David Weinberger, co-author of Cluetrain Manifesto and senior researcher at the Harvard Berkman Center, was introduced by David Sandberg, co-owner of Porter Square Books.

Source: Bookbuilders of Boston http://www.nepcoawards.com/

Eric Lease Morgan: Doing What I’m Not Suppose To Do

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 18:09

I suppose I’m doing what I’m not suppose to do. One of those things is writing in books.

I’m attending a local digital humanities conference. One of the presenters described and demonstrated a program from MIT called Annotation Studio. Using this program a person can upload some text to a server, annotate the text, and share the annotations with a wider audience. Interesting!?

I then went for a walk to see an art show. It seems I had previously been to this art museum. The art was… art, but I did not find it beautiful. The themes were disturbing.

I then made it to the library where I tried to locate a copy of my one and only formally published book — WAIS And Gopher Servers. When I was here previously, I signed the book’s title page, and I came back to do the same thing. Alas, the book had been moved to remote storage.

I then proceeded to find another book in which I had written something. I was successful, and I signed the title page. Gasp! Considering the fact that no one had opened the book in years, and the pages were glued together I figured, “What the heck!”

Just as importantly, my contribution to the book — written in 1992 — was a short story called, “A day in the life of Mr. D“. It is an account of how computers would be used in the future. In it the young boy uses it to annotate a piece of text, and he gets to see the text of previous annotators. What is old is new again.

P.S. I composed this blog posting using an iPad. Functional but tedious.

OCLC Dev Network: Interlibrary Loan Policies Directory Release on October 26

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 15:45

The Interlibrary Loan Policies Directory will be updated this weekend. We have changed the mediatype for Atom-wrapped JSON responses from "application/json" to "application/atom+json". This change is backward compatible - users can continue using “application/json” as needed for the time being - but we do recommend incorporating this mediatype change soon. 

Harvard Library Innovation Lab: Link roundup October 24, 2014

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 14:25

Frames, computers, design, madlibs and boats. Oh my!

Building the Largest Ship In the World, South Korea

This is a huge boat, er ship, er vessel. – Pics of the world’s largest ship.

What a _________ Job: How Mad Libs Are Written | Splitsider

Really makes me want to try writing a Mad Libs

Introduction – Material Design – Google design guidelines

Google’s material design docs are worth a peruse

Disney rendered its new animated film on a 55,000-core supercomputer

cooool

Freeze Frame: Joey McIntyre and Public Garden Visitors Hop Into Huge Frames – Boston Visitors’ Guide

These frames make picture taking fun and easy. Fantastic, I bet when you’re with a group of friends. #fopg

Open Knowledge Foundation: Uncovering the true cost of access

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 14:00

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world.

Large amounts of public money are spent on obtaining access to published research results, amounting to billions of dollars per year.

Despite the huge amounts of public money spent on allowing researchers to access the published results of taxpayer funded research [1], there is little fiscal transparency in the scholarly publishing market and frequent examples of secrecy, where companies or brokers insert non-disclosure clauses into contracts so the cost of subscriptions remains opaque. This prevents objective analysis of the market, prevents libraries negotiating effectively with publishers for fair prices and makes it hard to ascertain the economic consequences of open access policies.

This matters. Open access campaigners are striving to make research results openly and freely available to everyone in a sustainable and cost effective manner. Without detailed data on current subscription costs for closed content and the emerging cost of article processing charges (APCs) [2], it is very difficult to accurately model and plan this transition.

Library budgets are stretched and their role within institutions is changing, making high journal costs an increasing concern.

Specifically, there are concerns that in the intervening period, publishers may be benefiting from ‘double dipping’ – offering hybrid products which incur APCs for open access articles and subscription fees for all other content which could result in higher overall income. In a market where the profit margins of several major publishers run at 35-40% and they exert monopolistic control over a large proportion of our accumulated scientific and scholarly knowledge, there is understandably a lot of anger and concern about the state and future of the market.

Over the past year, members of the Open Knowledge open science and open access working groups have joined many other advocates and concerned researchers, librarians and citizens in working tirelessly to gather information on the true cost of knowledge. Libraries do not routinely publish financial information at this level of granularity and may be constrained by contractual obligations, so the route chosen to obtain data in the UK has been Freedom of information act (FOI) requests. High profile mathematician and OA advocate Tim Gowers revealed that the cost at Elsevier journals at top universities. Two further rounds of FOI requests by librarian and OKFest attendee Stuart Lawson and Ben Meghreblian have given an even broader overview across five major publishers. This has been released as open data and efforts continue to enrich the dataset. Working group members in Finland and Hong Kong are working to obtain similar information for their countries and further inform open access advocacy and policy globally.

Subscription data only forms part of the industry picture. A data expedition at Oxford Open Science for Open Data Day 2014 tried to look into the business structure of academic publishers using Open Corporates and quickly encountered a high level of complexity so this area requires further work. In terms of APCs and costs to funders, the working groups contributed to a highly successful crowdsourcing effort led by Theo Andrew and Michelle Brook to validate and enrich the Wellcome Trust publication dataset for 2013-2014 with further information on journal type and cost, thus enabling a clearer view of the cost of hybrid journal publications for this particular funder and also illustrating compliance with open access policies.

Mapping open access globally at #OKFestOA. The session conclusion was that far more data is needed to present a truly global view.

This work only scratches the surface and anyone who could help in a global effort to uncover the cost of access to scholarly knowledge would be warmly welcomed and supported by those who have now built up experience in obtaining this information. If funders and institutions have datasets they could contribute this would also be a fantastic help.

Please sign up to the wiki page here and join the related discussion forum for support in making requests. We hope by Open Access Week 2015 we’ll be posting a much more informative and comprehensive assessment of the cost of accessing scholarly knowledge!

Footnotes:

[1] A significant proportion of billions of dollars per year (estimated $9.4 billion on scientific journals alone in 2011). See STM report (PDF – 6.3MB).

[2] An open access business model where fees are paid to publishers for the service of publishing an article, which is then free to users.

Photo credits:

Money by 401(K) 2012 under CC-BY-SA 2.0

OKFest OA Map, Jenny Molloy, all copyright and related or neighboring rights waived to the extent possible under law using CC0 1.0 waiver. Published from the United Kingdom.

Library by seier+seier under CC-BY 2.0

Library of Congress: The Signal: Residency Program Success Stories, Part Two

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 13:57

The following is a guest post by Julio Díaz Laabes, HACU intern and Program Management Assistant at the Library of Congress.

This is the second part of a two part series on the former class of residents from the National Digital Stewardship Residency program. Part One covered four residents from the first year of the program and looked at their current professional endeavors and how the program helped them achieve success in their field. In this second part, we take a look at the successes of the remaining six residents of the 2013-2014 D.C class.

Top (left to right): Lauren Work, Jaime McCurry and Julia Blase
Bottom (left to right): Emily Reynolds, Molly Schwartz and Margo Padilla.

Lauren Work is employed as the Digital Collections Librarian at the Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA. She is responsible for Digitization Unit projects at VCU and is involved in a newly launched open access publishing platform and repository. Directly applying her experience during the residency, Lauren is also part of a team working to develop digital preservation standards at VCU and is participating in various digital discovery and outreach projects. On her experience being part of NDSR, Lauren said, “The residency gave me the ability to participate in and grow a network of information professionals focused on digital stewardship. This was crucial to my own professional growth.” Also, the ability to interact with fellow residents gave her “a tightly-knit group of people that I will continue to look to for professional support throughout my career.”

Following her residency at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Jaime McCurry  became the Digital Assets Librarian at Hillwood Estate, Museum and Gardens in Washington, D.C. She is responsible for developing and sustaining local digital stewardship strategies and preservation policies and workflows; development of a future digital institutional repository and performing outreach services to raise understanding and interest in Hillwood digital collections. On what was the most interesting aspect of her job, Jaime said “it’s the wide range of digital activities I am able to be involved in, from digital asset management to digital preservation, to access, outreach and web development.” In line with Lauren, Jaime stated, “NDSR helped me to establish a valuable network of colleagues and professionals in the DC area and also to further strengthen my project management and public speaking skills.”

At the conclusion of NDSR, Julia Blase accepted a position with Smithsonian Libraries as Project Manager for the Field Book Project, a collaborative initiative to improve the accessibility of field book content through cataloging, conservation, digitization and online publication of digital catalog data and images. For Julia, one of the most exiting aspects of the project is its cooperative nature; it involves staff at Smithsonian Libraries, Smithsonian Archives, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and members and affiliates of the Biodiversity Heritage Library. “NDSR helped introduce me to the community of digital library and archivist professionals in the DC area. It also gave me the chance to present at several conferences, including CNI (Coalition for Networked Information) in St. Louis, where I met some of the people I work with today.”

Emily Reynolds is a Library Program Specialist at the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a federal funding agency. She works on discretionary grant programs including the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program, which supports education and professional development for librarians and archivists (the NDSR program in Washington D.C., Boston and New York were funded through this program). “The NDSR helped in my current job because of the networking opportunities that residents were able to create as a result. The cohort model allowed us to connect with professionals at each other’s organization, share expertise with each other, and develop the networks and professional awareness that are vital for success,” she said. On the most interesting aspect of her job, Emily commented that “because of the range of grants awarded by IMLS, I am able to stay up-to-date on some of the most exciting and innovative projects happening in all kinds of libraries and archives. Every day in the office is different, given the complexities of the grant cycle and the diversity of programs we support.”

Molly Schwartz was a resident at the Association of Research Libraries. Now she is a Junior Analyst at the U.S State Department in the bureau of International information Program’s Office of Audience Research and Measurement. One of her biggest achievements is being awarded a 2014-2015 Fulbright Grant to work with the National Library of Finland and Aalto University on her project, User-Centered Design for Digital Cultural Heritage Portals. During this time, she will focus her research on the National Library of Finland’s online portal, Finna and conduct user-experience testing to improve the portal’s usability with concepts form user-centered designs.

Lastly, Margo Padilla is now the Strategic Programs Manager at the Metropolitan New York Library Council. She works alongside METRO staff to identify trends and technologies, develop workshops and services and manage innovative programs that benefit libraries, archives and museums in New York City. She is also the Program Director for NDSR-New York . “I used my experience as a resident to refine and further develop the NDSR program. I was able to base a lot of the program structure on the NDSR-DC model and the experience of the NDSR-DC cohort.” Margo also says that her job is especially rewarding “because I have the freedom to explore new ideas or projects, and leveraging the phenomenal work of our member community into solutions for the entire library, archive and museum community.”

Seeing the wide scope of positions the residents accepted after finishing the program, it is clear the NDSR has been successful in creating in-demand professionals to tackle digital preservation in many forms across the private and public sectors. The 2014-2015 Boston and New York classes are already underway and the next Washington D.C. class begins in June of 2015 (for more on that, see this recent blog post) . We expect these new NDSR graduates to form the next generation of digital stewards and to reach the same level of success as those in our pilot program.

 

William Denton: Escape Meta Alt from Word

planet code4lib - Fri, 2014-10-24 02:45

Escape from Microsoft Word by Edward Mendelson is an interesting short post about writing in Microsoft Word compared to that old classic WordPerfect:

Intelligent writers can produce intelligent prose using almost any instrument, but the medium in which they write will always have some more or less subtle effect on their prose. Karl Popper famously denounced Platonic politics, and the resulting fantasies of a closed, unchanging society, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). When I work in Word, for all its luxuriant menus and dazzling prowess, I can’t escape a faint sense of having entered a closed, rule-bound society. When I write in WordPerfect, with all its scruffy, low-tech simplicity, the world seems more open, a place where endings can’t be predicted, where freedom might be real.

But of course if the question is “Word or WordPerfect?” the answer is: Emacs. Everything is text.

Pages

Subscribe to code4lib aggregator