Abstract
This paper presents an overview of ways in which LIBER (Association of European Research Libraries) and its members are working towards embedding Open Access approaches to the dissemination of research outputs. It does this in three ways — by looking at current debates in which LIBER has become interested, on the economics of Open Access; by highlighting new projects in which LIBER is engaged, to develop new models and services via Open Access; and by looking at a model of best practice amongst LIBER members for developing an institutional Open Access mandate. The paper ends by drawing conclusions about the vitality of the work of LIBER member libraries in the Open Access landscape.
Highlights
In the three national studies, the costs and benefits of scholarly communication were compared, each based on three different publication models
Houghton concludes that, even if the cost saving for Open Access was zero, increased returns on Research and Development alone would justify a move to Open Access
Conclusions Engaged in global debate about the economics of Open Access Developing sustainable services, using Open Access protocols, which bring greater visibility to European research Creating pan-European partnerships, with innovative project funding, to develop cutting-edge projects to support the European user Developing tools for all European Universities to tackle the Open Access agenda
Summary
In June 2009, a study was completed by Professor John Houghton for the Knowledge Exchange, which compared the benefits of Open Access in the UK, the Netherlands and Denmark. there was the Prometheus exchange, not just Hall and Houghton, but Martin Hall’s paper too is well worth reading: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a920245249 &fulltext=713240928. Houghton and Oppenheim replied to the Prometheus papers in a more recent issue: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a925 180131~frm=titlelink. The primary question addressed in the Houghton/Oppenheim report is the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models at the overall system level, loosely, at the level of the UK economy. Professor Houghton has developed a dynamic model of his Scholarly Communications workflow, which is available for use. Such potential would allow for significant expansion of the Björk Scholarly Communication lifecycle model, as developed by Houghton and Oppenheim. The best outcome of the current debate would be to move beyond arguments about the veracity of data used in the cost–benefit analysis, to consideration of new and differently-located forms of public investment in the development of new knowledge systems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
