This is the text of a proposal (unfunded) submitted by Cheryl Knott Malone and Anita Coleman, School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona, Tucson to the IMLS National Leadership Grants 2005. To what extent does open access improve the impact of an article? This is the deceptively simple question that we will investigate. Our question is an important one if a clear understanding about the open access archive (OAA) phenomenon and what it means for our discipline, Library and Information Science (LIS) is ever to be achieved. We will use DLIST as the testbed for answering our key research question. DLIST is the Digital Library for Information Science and Technology <http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu>, an OAA, where scholars can self-register and deposit research, education, and practice publications that center on cultural heritage institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums. DLIST was established in the summer of 2002 as a disciplinary repository for LIS. DLIST runs on open source software, Eprints, and is compliant with Open Archives Initiative-Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). Thus DLIST is an interoperable data provider in the global chain of OAI repository services. Currently DLIST has about 500 users and 400 documents. Usage of DLIST has grown from 41,156 hits in February 2004 to 112,728 hits in January 2005. To answer the research question we will undertake the following activities over a period of three years. In the first year we will 1) digitize articles from the back issues of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS), the premier journal for all matters related to library education; 1) conduct a citation study of JELIS articles to benchmark their research impact prior to deposit in DLIST, 2) deposit and create the metadata for digitized JELIS articles in DLIST; and 3) complete the writing of a DLIST User Guide and Self-Archiving Workshops manual. In the second year of the project, we will 1) survey LIS faculty to determine a baseline of copyright awareness and scholarly communication behaviors related to self-archiving in the LIS education community, and 2) offer DLIST self-archiving workshops at four selected conferences. The workshops will introduce scholars to OAA and how to self-archive using DLIST. In the third year of the project, 1) participants who completed the DLIST workshops and surveys will be surveyed again, 2) a follow-up citation study to document citation rates and patterns of the digitized and deposited JELIS articles will be conducted, and 3) will be analyzed with usage of JELIS articles in DLIST to understand the impact of open access. The goal of the second survey is to determine how behaviors may have changed and find out how the JELIS articles in DLIST, were used in ways that may not be revealed through mere citation data. This will contribute a richer understanding of impact than if we had only quantitative data from DLIST usage logs and citation rates and patterns (traditional research impact factors only) for JELIS. Current experience with DLIST has given us tantalizing evidence that open access to the JELIS articles will have an impact and that the nature of the impact will be diverse and rich, not just limited to research citations. For example, informally gathered DLIST usage â nuggetsâ are often about the usefulness of DLIST materials for classroom teaching (sometimes in a global context, as when we learned that it is used in a LIS school in Czechoslovakia) and networking among LIS teachers, researchers and practitioners.

A qualitative approach to the concept of journal quality is explored.

This article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers' copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self-archiving. 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper. 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self-archiving as prior publication. 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self-archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self-archiving could take place. The article concludes that author-publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both parties. This article has been accepted for publication in Learned Publishing, 16 (4) October 2003.

These are the preliminary results about the greening of LIS reported at the World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) 2005, Oslo, Norway, Aug. 14-18, 2005, in the poster sessions (Tues. and Wed. August 16 and 17). Materials presented at the poster session correspond to call-outs in flowchart and include the following. 1) â Greenâ and â Goldâ Approaches to Open Access for LIS (A DLIST Study) â 1-page narrative of research study (analysis of LIS CTAs) 2) Self-Archiving in DLIST - 32â x 52â poster, the flowchart showing the two steps scholars take to self-archive (and some choices they have) 3) About DLIST â http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/915/ 4) Copyright Research & Deposit Services - http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/forms/DlistServices.pdf 5) Permission to deposit in DLIST â http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/forms/DlistPDA.pdf 6) Is Self-Archiving legal â a 1-page flyer excerpted from the Eprints Self-archiving FAQ. However, only the first two of these are deposited as part of this document as the others are available separately (see urls below).

This paper briefly describes the rapidly changing research evaluation and funding landscape in Australian universities, specifically in relation to open access and institutional repositories. Recent announcements indicate that funding and evaluation bodies are becoming increasingly concerned that publicly funded research be made publicly available. The paper then reports a survey of all levels of academic staff plus research students at one Australian university conducted in May 2006, prior to the introduction of an institutional repository. The survey, in line with previously reported surveys, found that while there was a high level of engagement with scholarly publishing, there was a low level of awareness of, or concern with, either open access ("green" or "gold") or the roles repositories can play in increasing accessibility of research. Practically, this indicates that much work needs to be done within this university to increase knowledge of, and change behaviours with regard to, open access and repositories if the university and its academics are to make the most of new funding requirements and research evaluation processes.

This short presentation (12 Microsoft PowerPoint slides with 14 selective references) was delivered at the SIRLS researchers get-together. It traces the genesis of DLIST and the Information Technology and Society research lab.

This presentation was made at a LITA panel on Institutional Repositories at the Annual ALA meeting in Chicago, IL on June 27, 2005.

This is a preprint version of a paper submitted to the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. A study of ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals towards self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works, preferably in an OAI-compliant open access repository. Results show that 62 % (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open web; 38 % (20) do. Of the 38 % that have CTAs available, two are open access journals. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available a high level of ambiguity exists. Of the 62 % that do not have a public CTA, 40 % are silent about self-archiving. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and author instructions, reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright transfer agreements are a moving target and publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in the scholarly journal publishing arena. Given the ambivalence of journal publishers, the communities might be better off by self-archiving in open access archives and strategically building an LIS information commons through a society-led global scholarly communication consortium. The aggregation of OAI-compliant archives and development of disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility besides ameliorating its own scholarly communication and publishing systems, and serving as a model for others.

This paper is the fifth in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It reports the results of two surveys of OAI Data Providers (DPs) and Service Providers (SPs) with regards to the rights issues they face. It finds that very few DPs have rights agreements with depositing authors and that there is no standard approach to the creation of rights metadata. This paper considers the rights protection afforded individual and collections of metadata records under UK Law and contrasts this with DP and SP's views on the right status of metadata and how they wish to protect it. The majority of DPs and SPs believe that a standard way of describing both the rights status of documents and of metadata would be useful. This article is an unrefereed preprint.

Mathematics research in India, as reflected by papers indexed in Mathsci 1988-1998, is quantified and mapped. Statistics, quantum theory and general topology are the three subfields contributing the most to India's output in mathematics research, followed by special functions, economics and operations research, and relativity and gravitational theory. Indian Statistical Institute and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research are the two leading publishers of research papers. Unlike in many other fields, Calcutta publishes the largest number of papers in mathematics, followed by Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Delhi are the leading states. Researchers from 257 institutions spread over 134 cities/towns have published 17,308 papers in the 11 years. About 92% of these papers have appeared in 877 journals published from 62 countries. Journals published in the USA, UK and the Netherlands are popular with Indian mathematicians. Of the 36 journals that have published at least a hundred papers, 20 are Indian journals of which only two are indexed in Journal Citation Reports. In all, about 38.5% of papers have been published in Indian journals, as against about 70% in agriculture, 55% in life sciences, 33.5% in medicine and 20% in physics. In the later years, there has been a moderate shift to non-Indian journals. Close to 78% of papers have come from universities and colleges and 13% from the institutions under science related departments. Almost all papers in high impact journals are physics related and most of them have come from institutions under the Department of Atomic Energy. Over 15% of the 9760 papers published during 1993-1998 are internationally coauthored. In all of science, as seen from Science Citation Index, 14% of Indian papers were internationally coauthored in 1991 and 17.6% in 1998. The USA, Canada, and Germany are the important collaborating nations, followed by France, Italy, Japan and the UK.