No Such Thing as a Free LunchBalancing Locally Curated Open Access Collections and Their Costs

Allyson Rodriguez, Strategic Collections Librarian

University of North Texas

Roadmap

• The world of open access

• Our response

• What’s working

• Areas for improvement

• In the future

Which way: A confusing road sign. CC Image courtesy of oatsy40 on Flickr

World of OA

• From SPARC (in 2012)

• 9,745 Open Access journals

• 81,780 Open Access articles published in 2012

• In Directory of Open Access Books (in August 2016)

• 5,193 Open Access books

• From 159 Publishers

The Paradox of Choice• “…the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily

mean that more choice is better.”

• “…the growth of options and opportunities for choice has three, related, unfortunate effects. It means that

decisions require more effort. It makes mistakes more likely. It makes the psychological consequence of

mistakes more severe.”

- The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry Schwartz

The Response

• Curate and Vet

• Open Access Cataloging

• Associated costs

Indexed a CC Image by kyz on Flickr

Curate

• Does it apply to our institution?

• Did we get a request for it?

Sifting., a CC by image from the jof on Flickr

Vet• Collection Development Policy for Open Access and

Born-Digital Resources -http://www.library.unt.edu/policies/collection-development/oa-collection-development-policy

• Rubric

Resource Name: Date: Excellent Adequate Insufficient

Quality (Review Process)Stated peer or librarian review, prefer multiple reviewers (for journals, etc.)

Peer or librarian review is noted but not described in detail or the process is limited

No review processes are in place

Quality (Contact Information)Contact information is provide for

author/publisherContact information for author or publisher is general, outdated, or incomplete

No contact information is provided or is only available through contact form

Quality (Information)Information is logical and pertains to stated

subject of resource (look at titles, abstracts, any other information)

Most (not all) information is pertient to the subject Subjects are varied and seemingly incoherent

Authority (Publisher)Credentials of publisher are clearly and easily identifiable; Preferred domains: .edu, .gov, .org, or .net

Credentials of publisher are difficult to find, or do not match subject very closely; Publisher has positive reputation but not estabilshed longevity

Publisher credentials are not included or poor; Publisher has limited or no positive reputation;

Authority (Author)Credentials of author are clearly and easily identifiable; Credentials scholarly in nature and relevant to content

Credentials of author are difficult to find, or lacking in some way

Author credentials are not included or irrelevant

Objectivity (Information)

Information provided is open to verification and validation, process for this is stated;Informationprovides for multiple perspectives and/or addresses shortcomings of research

Information provided is open to verification and validation in a limited fashion; Information provides for some perspectives and may address shortcomings of research but not completely

Information provided is not open to verification or validation; Shortcomings of research are not addresssed or multiple perspectives not allowed

Objectivity (Advertising) No or minimal advertising Moderate advertising is presentHeavy advertising is present and interferes with

information

CurrencyInformation is recently published relative to the subject)

Information is generally published recentlyLarge gaps between publications; Information is out of date

Currency (Frequency)Publication dates are regular, clearly identified on

the resource, and adhered toLimited larger gaps between publications than those

stated on the resourcePublication frequency is not stated or adhered to

Functionality (Software and Registration)

No additional software is needed; No registration is needed to access the resource

Minimal, if any, additional software is needed; No registration is needed to access the resource

Extra software or plugins are necessary to view information; Registration is necessary

Functionality (Viewing Options)Resource has text-only viewing options, or options for optimal viewing

Limited display options available or text-only is not available

Limited or no display options available, limiting usability of information

Functionality (Links) All citations and links are correct and functional Most citations links are correct and functional; Multiple citations and links are incorrect or not functioning

What’s Working

• Some Automation

• Continued Ingestion

• Discoverable!

• Liaisons and Experts

Areas for Improvement - Metadata

• Automation

• Not always robust

• Time and effort

Areas for improvement - Tracking

• No good way to track usage

• Return on investment

• Initiatives

Areas for improvement - Initiatives

• Pay to support Open Access publication

• Records and metadataMetadata is a love note to the future, a CC by image by cea on Flickr

Going Forward – Local Ingesting

• Digital Library

• Local copy

• Tracking!

• Cost

Going Forward – Multiple Access Points

• Fully Open Access included in packages

• Extra access points

• Redundant

• Identification

Going Forward – Tracking

• Again

Wrap Up

Too much choice is badSo Curate your collections (even OA)

Evaluate everything

Some automation is ok

Metadata and tracking of OA are areas of need

Coming soon: OA in the Digital Library!

Questions?

• allyson.rodriguez@unt.edu

References

• Rodriguez, A. (2016). OA resource rubric. Retrieved from UNT Digital Library at http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc854098/?q=allyson%20rodriguez . Doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3491642.v2

• Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

• SPARC. (2016). Open access to scholarly and scientific research articles. Retrieved from http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-Open-Access-Factsheet.pdf