Gail P. Clement has published "The Copyright Self-Help Movement: Initiatives in the Library Community" in the latest issue of College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

In the library context, the self-help concept refers to collective actions by practitioners to maximize the balancing features in American copyright law. These features include the various limitations to owner's rights and the provision for a public domain. Copyright self-help complements scholarly communication initiatives that help campus authors retain the rights to reuse and share their own publications. In combination, both types of collective community action serve to maximize allowable uses of copyrighted materials (or identify public domain materials) in order to fuel scholarship, innovation, education, and culture.

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

The Pacific University Libraries and the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo have launched the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

A joint publishing partnership between the libraries at Pacific University (Ore.) and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo has announced a new open access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to library-led scholarly communication initiatives, online publishing and digital projects.

The Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication will provide a focused forum for library practitioners to share ideas, strategies, research and pragmatic explorations of library-led initiatives related to such areas as institutional repository and digital collection management, library publishing/hosting services and authors' rights advocacy efforts. As technology, scholarly communication, the economics of publishing, and the roles of libraries all continue to evolve, the work shared in JLSC will inform practices that strengthen librarianship.

Marisa Ramirez (Cal Poly) and Isaac Gilman (Pacific University) will co-edit the journal in collaboration with an editorial board composed of experienced and respected library practitioners.

Founding board members include Allyson Mower (University of Utah), Amy Buckland (McGill University), Ann Lally (University of Washington), Faye Chadwell (Oregon State University), JQ Johnson (University of Oregon), Katherine Johnson (California Institute of Technology), Lisa Schiff (California Digital Library), Michael Boock (Oregon State University), Pamela Bluh (University of Maryland, School of Law), Paul Royster (University of Nebraska), Rebecca Kennison (Columbia University), Sarah Shreeves (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Shawn Martin (University of Pennsylvania), Susan Wells Parham (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Terry Owen (University of Maryland).

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

STM has released the "STM Statement on Negotiating Rights for Institutional Repository Postings and Author Rights."

Here's an excerpt:

Recently some advocates for institutional repositories have noted that, in connection with the responsibilities that academic and research libraries may have for coordinating the scholarly output of author-researchers at their institutions, there are efficiencies to be gained in negotiating at an institutional level with journal publishers. . . .

STM publishers are of the view that content license negotiations deal appropriately with questions about the scope of content that will be accessible for each institutional subscriber as well as the scope of usage rights and relative costs for such accessibility and rights. These negotiations are often complex, especially given that in recent years efforts have been made to manage negotiations through procurement processes of different kinds. We hold the view that conflating author rights issues and institutional content licenses serves only to add greater complexity and possible legal uncertainty to such licenses without adding meaningful benefits for authors.

SPARC, SPARC Europe and COAR have issued a "Public Response on Behalf of SPARC, SPARC Europe and COAR Regarding Publishers Self-Deposit Policies."

Here's an excerpt:

We have recently noted that some journal publishers have sought to negotiate individually with universities and research institutes, seeking to increase embargo periods for authors depositing pre-prints of their articles into repositories, and requesting embargo periods that go beyond what is already stated in the publishers' own policies.

We strongly urge institutions not to enter into individual agreements with publishers that supersede the existing policies of the publisher or any previous licensing agreements.

We also call on the publishers not to further hinder the deposit—and accessibility—of pre-prints with additional restrictions, regulations and policies. Proliferation of this practice will result in an environment that is confusing to navigate for end users, and increasingly difficult for individual institutions to effectively maintain.

Read more about it at "Double Talk."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Ted Striphas has self-archived "Acknowledged Goods: Cultural Studies and the Politics of Academic Journal Publishing" in IU ScholarWorks.

Here's an excerpt:

This essay explores the changing context of academic journal publishing and cultural studies' envelopment within it. It does so by exploring five major trends affecting scholarly communication today: alienation, proliferation, consolidation, pricing, and digitization. More specifically, it investigates how recent changes in the political economy of academic journal publishing have impinged on cultural studies' capacity to transmit the knowledge it produces, thereby dampening the field's political potential. It also reflects on how cultural studies' alienation from the conditions of its production has resulted in the field's growing involvement with interests that are at odds with its political proclivities.

Benjamin J. Keele has self-archived "Copyright Provisions in Law Journal Publication Agreements" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This study examined copyright provisions of law journal publication agreements and found that a minority of journals ask authors to transfer copyright. Most journals also permit authors to self-archive articles. It recommends journals make their agreements publicly available and use licenses instead of copyright transfers.

Benjamin J. Keele has self-archived "Examining Law Journal Publication Agreements for Copyright Transfers and Self-Archiving Rights" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This study examines 78 law journal publication agreements and finds that a minority of journals ask authors to transfer copyright. Most journals also permit author to self-archive articles with some conditions. The study recommends journals make their agreements publicly available and use licenses instead of copyright transfers.

SHERPA has released a major upgrade of its RoMEO service, which lists publishers' self-archiving policies.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

A major upgrade to RoMEO has been released today, giving:

• Extra Category for the self-archiving of the Publisher's Version/ PDF
• Expanded Journal Coverage
• Extra Search Options for Journal Abbreviations and Electronic ISSNs
• New Tabular Browse View for Publishers
• Selective Display of Publishers' Compliance with Funding Agencys' Mandates . . . .

Previous versions of RoMEO have concentrated on highlighting information on the use of the pre-print and post-print. There has been great support from the community for also providing clearly labelled information on the use of the publisher's version/PDF as a separate item. This feature has now been included and sits alongside information on self-archiving rights for Pre-prints and Authors' Post-prints. The information is available in both individual publisher entries and in the new Tabular Browse View.

RoMEO now provides expanded journal coverage, enabling users to draw from both the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Entrez journal list for the Life Sciences, along with the existing resource of the British Library's Zetoc service.

In addition to searching for journals by Print ISSN, users are now able to search by Electronic ISSN. They can also search for journals using title abbreviations.

The new Tabular Browse View enables users to display comparative charts of publishers, to quickly determine and compare what different Publishers allow them to deposit, and if the Publisher has a Paid OA Option.

If you or your authors receive funding from any of the 50 plus agencies listed in JULIET, you will now be able to restrict your search results to display Publishers' compliance with any of the funding agencies' policies listed in JULIET.

The Association of Research Libraries has released Public Access Policies, SPEC Kit 311. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The concept of a public access policy for research results is based on the premise that government-funded research results should be freely available without barriers to taxpayers, who provide support for the funding. With the recent enactment of the US National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Policy on Access to Research Outputs, much attention has been devoted to public access policies. Many academic and research libraries have taken the lead in developing resources and services to support authors who are required to comply with these policies.

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on staffing, partnerships, and resources and services developed for public access policy (PAP) compliance support, and the challenges related to providing such support. Seventy libraries (57%) from sixty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Of the respondents, sixty-three were at libraries located within the United States (90%) and seven were at libraries located in Canada (10%).

The majority of the responding libraries provide, or plan to provide, resources and services that help authors affiliated with their institution (and/or the author’s support staff) to comply with public access policies. Thirty-seven respondents (53%) indicated that more than one library within their system provides PAP compliance support; eleven (16%) indicated that just one library within their institution is providing this support. Four other institutions (6%) are planning to support PAP compliance. Of the libraries that do not provide such support, eight (11%) indicated that another department or unit within their institution provides compliance support. Eight others (11%) responded that their institution offers no PAP compliance support.

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of PAP Web sites, compliance FAQs and flowcharts, handouts and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff, and sample letters to publishers.

Kevin L. Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at the Duke University Libraries, has published "Open Access and Authors’ Rights Management: A Possibility for Theology?" in Theological Librarianship: An Online Journal of the American Theological Library Association.

Here's an excerpt:

Several academic disciplines have begun to understand the benefits of open access to scholarship, both for scholars and for the general public. Scientific disciplines have led the way, partially due to the nature of scholarship in those areas and partially because they have felt the crisis in serials pricing more acutely than others. Theological studies, however, have largely been insulated from the push for open access; considering the reasons for that is the first task of this article. It is also the case, however, that the missionary impulse that stands behind much theological scholarship is a strong incentive to embrace the opportunities afforded by digital, online dissemination of research and writing. After discussing this imperative for global distribution, the bulk of the article focuses on how theological institutions, and especially their libraries, can encourage and support scholars in making their work freely accessible. Copyright issues, including the elements of a successful copyright management program, are discussed, as are some of the technological elements necessary for an efficient and discoverable open access repository. Options for licensing, both at ingestion of content and at dissemination to users are also considered. Finally, it is argued that the role of consortia and professional organizations in supporting these initiatives is especially important because of the relatively small size of so many theological institutions.

The Association of Research Libraries has published Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on the use of author addenda at their institutions, which rights authors were encouraged to retain, and the methods by which libraries were conducting promotion and outreach efforts on the topic of author rights and addenda. Seventy libraries (57%) responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 35 (50%) indicated that authors at their institutions were using author addenda, and 33 libraries (47%) indicated that they “did not know.” Only two libraries indicated that authors at their institutions were not using author addenda.

The majority of respondents (77%) did not formally collect information on the use of author addenda on their campuses at the time of this survey. Evidence was gathered mostly in an informal way, either when an author contacted the library with a question related to copyright or an author addendum, or through anecdotal stories of success or failure in using an addendum. Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries reported that an author addendum had been endorsed by administrators or a governing body at their institution or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded that there had been no endorsements. There had been more endorsements at the consortial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries (12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was under consideration at the time of the survey. A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that their institution or consortium had worked to promote the use of an author addendum by providing links to an author addendum and copyright information on library Web sites or making faculty presentations on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH Public Access Policy).

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of sample addenda, brochures, handouts, and author rights Web sites and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff.