Interesting article from U.S. News and World Reports.  “Is the Academic Publishing Industry on the Verge of Disruption?”:  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/23/is-the-academic-publishing-industry-on-the-verge-of-disruption

Call for papers

The advent of both digital content and new forms of communication has made radical changes in the expectations of health science library users for access to information.   At the same time, in response to concerns over the increasing cost of health care, government funding agencies have changed their expectations for how health-related research is conducted.  Funding agencies look for translational medicine and dispersion of information across disciplines and institutions.   Researchers and clinicians expect information at their desktop, 24 x 7, in a format that can be easily digested and used.

Responding to the opportunities provided by these changes, some librarians and libraries have changed their focus, no longer emphasizing libraries as keepers of the information universe but instead stressing their ability to provide expertise in support of those who work in the health information universe.  A number of new paradigms have been reported at conferences and in the media:  embedded librarians, e-science experts, support for translational medicine, and data curation and management.  To help us gain a better understanding of these new paradigms, the Journal of the Medical Library Association is planning to devote our October 2013 issue to papers that focus on the outcomes experienced by those who have taken on these new roles.

This issue will include invited papers summarizing the current state of the field.  We also encourage submissions from those with new roles who are willing to share their successes, or failures, with their peers.   To be considered for this issue, papers must be submitted by February 15, 2013.

We particularly welcome submission of:

• Brief Communications that describe evaluations of either the need for, or success of, new roles.  Papers should provide a brief literature review and then describe the new role, the method used to assess the need for the role or to evaluate its success, such as a small scale survey, focus groups, or measures of user participation in services provided; and the results of that evaluation or assessment.  Papers describing evaluations of education and training programs relevant to new roles are also welcome.  Brief Communications are 1800 words or less.
• Case studies that describe, in depth, new or innovative roles for librarians such as embedded librarians, e-science experts, support for translational medicine or data curation.  Papers submitted in this category should provide a brief literature review; describe the components of the new role and relate, if relevant, the institutional factors that supported the creation of this new paradigm; followed by an evaluation of the success or failure of the initiative and any lessons learned.   Papers submitted as Case Studies must include evidence that allows the reader to judge the value of the contribution of the librarian in this new role independent of the author’s opinion.  Examples of evidence include results of a user survey, inclusion of the librarian in papers authored by a research team, improvements or changes in an open access journal attributed to a librarian, or continued financial support from, or additional responsibilities assigned by, the institution.  Case studies are 3500 words or less.
• Full-length research papers investigating a research question related to new roles for health sciences libraries or librarians.   Research papers should use a standard quantitative or qualitative research design; quantitative studies should employ a sampling methodology that allows extrapolation to the larger population.  Examples in this category would be qualitative or quantitative studies evaluating faculty or clinicians reactions to embedded librarians or illuminating the features of digital libraries that contribute to their success, or a benchmarking study of librarian roles in CTSA grant funded projects.  There is a 5000 word limit for research papers.

To appear in this issue papers should be received no later than February 15, 2013.

If you would like to discuss an idea for a paper, please contact Susan Starr, Editor, JMLA at jmlaeditorbox@gmail.com.  Further details on procedures for JMLA submissions and requirements for brief communications, case studies and full-length papers can be found on the JMLA Information for Authors page, http://www.mlanet.org/publications/jmla/jmlainfo.html.  All papers should be submitted online at http://www.editorialmanager.com/jmla/.

MAR would like to know if anyone else within our region may be presenting at MLA.  After MLA, we would like to highlight and share details about what you’re doing.  If you are doing a paper presentation or a poster, please provide answers to the questions listed below to:  nnlmmar@pitt.edu by Thursday, May 24^th.

1. Title of the Presentation/Poster
2. Date of the Presentation/Poster
3. Names of the Presenters
4. Description/Abstract of the Presentation/Poster

We are pleased to announce the publication of the inaugural issue of the Journal of eScience Librarianship (http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/), a new online journal published by the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.  The Journal of eScience Librarianship is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that advances the theory and practice of librarianship with a special focus on services related to data-driven research in the physical, biological, and medical sciences.  The inaugural issue includes the Proceedings of the Third Annual University of Massachusetts and New England Area Librarian e-Science Symposium held in the Spring of 2011. Feature articles include topics such as DataONE, librarian competencies, and the various levels of data services.

The Journal of eScience Librarianship explores the many roles of librarians in supporting eScience and is currently seeking submissions related to education, outreach, collaborations, current practices, and reviews of relevant resources and tools, by contributors from all areas of the globe. Articles covering both the theoretical and practical applications are welcomed.  The Journal of eScience Librarianship also provides special features in each issue which include book reviews on subjects of interest to librarians supporting eScience and information on new technologies.  To read more, including our aims and scope and editorial board membership, please visit our website: http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/

Elaine Martin, Editor-in-Chief

Director of Library Services

University of Massachusetts Medical School

55 Lake Ave. North

Worcester, MA  01655

508-856-2399

Elaine.Martin@umassmed.edu

The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) was introduced into the House this week and is expected to be introduced into the Senate shortly.  Original sponsors in the House are Reps. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO).  Senate sponsors are Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and possibly Sen. Durbin (D-IL).

You can find a link to the statement on Rep Doyle’s website:  http://doyle.house.gov/press-releases-1/2012/02/doyle-introduces-bill-to-ensure-public-access-to-federally-funded-research.shtml

The text of the bill itself is available at: http://doyle.house.gov/FRPA112FINAL.pdf.

The NIH released a February 2012 document summarizing its public access policy…

“WHAT IS AT STAKE UNDER THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY:  Opening up to the public 90,000 new scientific articles each year reporting research that U.S. taxpayers have funded through NIH’s annual 32 billion dollar investment in biomedical research…

HOW IT WORKS:  The NIH policy honors, and is consistent with, U.S. copyright law.  The author, as the creator of the work, holds the copyright in the original paper.  The author gives NIH a non-exclusive right to distribute the paper in PMC and may transfer to the publisher the balance of his rights, including an exclusive copyright for the final published version of the paper…

SUPPORT FROM PUBLISHERS:  Publishers representing about 1000 journals voluntarily submit the full content of their journals to PMC, regardless of whether the issue contains an article subject to the NIH Public Access Policy…

NO HARM TO PUBLISHERS IS EVIDENT:  The Public Access requirement took effect in 2008.  While the U.S. economy has suffered a downturn during the time period 2007 to 2011, scientific publishing has grown:  [1] The number of journals dedicated to publishing biological sciences/agriculture articles and medicine/health articles increased 15% and 19%, respectively.  [2] The average subscription prices of biology journals and health sciences journals increased 26% and 23%, respectively.  [3] Publishers forecast increases to the rate of growth of the medical journal market, from 4.5% in 2011 to 6.3% in 2014…”

The NIH public access policy:  http://publicaccess.nih.gov/public_access_policy_implications_2012.pdf.

J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 21;13(4):e97.

Public access and use of health research: An exploratory study of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy using interviews and surveys of health personnel

O’Keeffe J, Willinsky J, Maggio L.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy mandated open access for publications resulting from NIH funding (following a 12-month embargo). The large increase in access to research that will take place in the years to come has potential implications for evidence-based practice (EBP) and lifelong learning for health personnel.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses health personnel’s current use of research to establish whether grounds exist for expecting, preparing for, and further measuring the impact of the NIH Public Access Policy on health care quality and outcomes in light of time constraints and existing information resources.

METHODS

In all, 14 interviews and 90 surveys of health personnel were conducted at a community-based clinic and an independent teaching hospital in 2010. Health personnel were asked about the research sources they consulted and the frequency with which they consulted these sources, as well as motivation and search strategies used to locate articles, perceived level of access to research, and knowledge of the NIH Public Access Policy.

RESULTS

In terms of current access to health information, 65% (57/88) of the health personnel reported being satisfied, while 32% (28/88) reported feeling underserved. Among the sources health personnel reported that they relied upon and consulted weekly, 83% (73/88) reported turning to colleagues, 77% (67/87) reported using synthesized information resources (e.g., UpToDate and Cochrane Systematic Reviews), while 32% (28/88) reported that they consulted primary research literature. The dominant resources health personnel consulted when actively searching for health information were Google and Wikipedia, while 27% (24/89) reported using PubMed weekly. The most prevalent reason given for accessing research on a weekly basis, reported by 35% (31/88) of survey respondents, was to help a specific patient, while 31% (26/84) were motivated by general interest in research.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide grounds for expecting the NIH Public Access Policy to have a positive impact on EBP and health care more generally given that between a quarter and a third of participants in this study (1) frequently accessed research literature, (2) expressed an interest in having greater access, and (3) were aware of the policy and expect it to have an impact on their accessing research literature in the future. Results also indicate the value of promoting a greater awareness of the NIH policy, providing training and education in the location and use of the literature, and continuing improvements in the organization of biomedical research for health personnel use.

PMID: 22106169

[PubMed - in process]

Free full text

We are pleased to announce that you can now access the presentations from the November 30, 2011, workshop on Repositories in Science and Technology from the CENDI website.  The following is the URL to take you directly to the posted agenda from which the presentations and bios are linked.  We also posted the attendee list (revised per no shows and last-minute attendees), which is also linked from the agenda.

It was a very successful workshop with a sizable number of staff from CENDI agencies in attendance.  At the January 12 meeting, we hope to have an analysis of the completed evaluations that were collected following the workshop:  http://cendi.gov/activities/11_30_2011_CENDI_NFAIS_FLICC_post.html.

James Boyle, a professor of law and co-founder of the Centre for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke University and author of The Public Domain: enclosing the commons of the mind, has given a public lecture on how intellectual property and public domain interacts with areas of human development such as scientific research and free speech.  Princeton’s UChannel has put his lecture up in a freely available podcast.

Go to the UChannel page to listen.

The Modern Language Assocation’s (MLA) new style guide for citing sources in research has done away with print being the default style.  They have also done away with citing the URL of an electronic resource found on the web!

The Modern Language Association’s styles are long the standard in humanities research, could other style guides be far behind?  With much of the medical research being published in electronic journals now how will other citation standards change?

Ars Technica has a short article with comments discussing the changes as well as a link to the MLA’s new guide.