Search results

The present paper is compilation of open access resources in the subject area library and information science (LIS) and their usefulness in the LIS teaching and learning process. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Researcher compiled list by visiting library science department web sites, library web sites, OA forums/blogs, etc.

The library science subject area is rich in various forms of open access literature which is reported in the paper.

One of the first studies to report various forms of open access literature in the library science subject area.

In his 1931 unpublished “Surplus Product” manuscript Sraffa used an open–closed distinction to explain the relationship between the “economic field” and distribution. This chapter examines Sraffa’s thinking in this regard, and shows how it allowed him to resolve a problem he encountered in his early objectivist representation of commodity production in economies with a surplus. The chapter argues that Sraffa adopted a view different from Bertalanffy’s general systems theory understanding of open and closed systems developed around the same time in such a way as to address the specific nature of economics. The chapter compares two related interpretations of Sraffa’s thinking in regard to the open–closed distinction developed by Arena and Ginzburg, and also addresses how Sraffa’s thinking regarding open and closed systems compares with similar thinking of Wittgenstein and Gramsci. The concluding discussion contrasts Sraffa’s causal reasoning with mainstream economics’ ceteris paribus method of causal reasoning.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a personal viewpoint on the development of document supply in the context of the recent European Union (EU) decisions on open science.

The paper provides some elements to the usual questions of service development, about business, customers, added value, environment and objectives.

The EU goal for open science is 100 per cent available research results in 2020. To meet the challenge, document supply must change, include more and other content, serve different targets groups, apply innovative technology and provide knowledge. If not, document supply will become a marginalized library service.

Basically, open science is not library-friendly, and it does not offer a solution for the actual problems of document supply. But it may provide an opportunity for document supply to become a modern service able to deal with new forms of unequal access and digital divide.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss emerging practices in open evaluation, namely, the concept of co-evaluation and how research on evaluation developed within information science can contribute to enhance stakeholders and citizens’ involvement in open science.

A meta-evaluative and transdisciplinary approach – directed toward the intersection between information science, evaluation, competences management, sustainability transitions management and participatory methodologies – provided the basis for the identification and subsequent reflection on the levels of stakeholder participation embedded into ISO 16439’s (2014) methods for assessing the impact of libraries and on the domains and competences to be mobilized for (co)evaluation. The contributions of Engaged 2020 Action Catalogue, as well as several taxonomies of evaluator competences and the Council of Europe’s (2016) conceptual model of competences for a democratic culture were particularly relevant for this (re)construction process.

Two results of the line of research carried out since 2012 at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal) can significantly contribute to improve stakeholders’ participation in Open Science: ISO 16439’s systematization of methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries and the (co-)evaluation competency framework.

This paper presents the transdisciplinary concept of co-evaluation and examines the current epistemological challenges to science by analyzing the general tendency to openness through the lens of research on evaluation and participatory methods developed within information science.

The study aims to investigate the utilisation of open research data repositories (RDRs) for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions (HLIs) in Tanzania.

A survey research design was employed to collect data from postgraduate students at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST) in Arusha, Tanzania. The data were collected and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A census sampling technique was employed to select the sample size for this study. The quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), whilst the qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Less than half of the respondents were aware of and were using open RDRs, including Zenodo, DataVerse, Dryad, OMERO, GitHub and Mendeley data repositories. More than half of the respondents were not willing to share research data and cited a lack of ownership after storing their research data in most of the open RDRs and data security. HILs need to conduct training on using trusted repositories and motivate postgraduate students to utilise open repositories (ORs). The challenges for underutilisation of open RDRs were a lack of policies governing the storage and sharing of research data and grant constraints.

Research data storage and sharing are of great interest to researchers in HILs to inform them to implement open RDRs to support these researchers. Open RDRs increase visibility within HILs and reduce research data loss, and research works will be cited and used publicly. This paper identifies the potential for additional studies focussed on this area.

Research in the field of openness has become very broad and, unfortunately, also opaque. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to analyse and map the trends by applying bibliometric tools to the scientific literature published between 1990 and 2015, for descriptive bibliometric analysis, and 2011 to 2015, for content analysis.

A bibliometric analysis was used to identify document types, most prolific institutions, countries, source titles and Web of Science categories in the field of openness. Furthermore, bibliometric mapping was performed to discover country and institutional cooperation networks and to be able to understand funding opportunities for openness and information technology research. Additionally, with content analysis, scientific landscape was produced with most prolific terms and their chronological evolution through time.

The first information sources were published in 1990, and production was steady until 1998. After that period, the growth becomes exponential for the total number of information sources, as well as articles and proceedings papers, with a slight decrease in growth between 2009 and 2011. Descriptive bibliometric analysis showed that the most productive countries were the USA, the UK, Germany, China, Italy and Spain.

This paper presents the first holistic bibliometric analysis of the literature production concerning openness in relation to information and communication technology which helps researchers in the field to better understand the relations between themes and outsiders to get an overview of the openness scientific landscape.

For those immersed in the environment of academic and research libraries, the word “data” seems to be everywhere. One hears about linked data, big data, open data, proprietary data, research data, metadata, geospatial data, data repositories, etc.

Some libraries even have data librarians and data services departments.

The author of this column wonders if she were to collect all of the library and information science literature published in the past three years and plug it into a word cloud app, which of the two, i.e. “data” or “books”, would be displayed in a larger font.

The author suspects that the chances are more than good that “data” would come out on top.

One common feature of different variants of participatory and action research is rejection of technocratic, undemocratic elements in science and inquiry, aiming to break the dominance of traditional academic views of science. These variants open up broader participation of people, and emancipate knowledge creation for the production of actionable knowledge with transformative potentials. The purpose of this chapter is to recognize and clarify a striving for knowledge democracy in these explicit or implicit democratizing ambitions and tendencies in the sense of broadening the participation of concerned parties in research and development work on open and equal terms. This recent concept, still in the process of formulation, has been proposed as a global mobilizing and unifying thinking for distributed networks and movements for participatory oriented research. The concept and movement had an initial embedding in the First Global Assembly for Knowledge Democracy in June 2017, Cartagena, Columbia. The purpose of the chapter is to elaborate on the meaning of knowledge democracy as a vision for the participatory and action research community. Particularly I will distinguish between different orientation to knowledge democracy, and the character of the logic of a more, open, democratic and coproductive science that can be a carrier of it.

The purpose of this paper is to open the special issue of Online Information Review on open knowledge management in higher education. Its aim is to review the concept and extension of the movement or philosophy of open knowledge in universities and higher education institutions.

The approach follows the reference model used by the University of Salamanca (Spain) to promote open knowledge in the institution through its Open Knowledge Office. This model comprises four areas: free software, open educational content and cultural dissemination, open science, and open innovation.

For each of the four areas mentioned above, milestones and the most significant projects are presented, showing how they are promoting publication and information transmission in an open environment, without restrictions and favouring knowledge dissemination in all fields.

Open knowledge is an approach which, although somewhat controversial, is growing relentlessly as cultural and scientific dissemination leave behind other interests or economic models. International organisations and governments are gradually embracing open knowledge as the way to share scientific advances with society and as an international cooperative way to assist development in third‐world countries.