Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘yellow’ and ‘white’) and related restrictions and conditions over time. Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the 12 years, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options. Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access. Compares the number of RoMEO ‘green’ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ‘redefined green’ (allowing embargo-free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO ‘green’ increased by 8% and ‘redefined green’ decreased by 35% over the 12 years. Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended. Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what ‘green’ means to better reflect a publisher’s commitment to self-archiving.

Carnegie Mellon faculty Web pages and publisher policies were examined to understand self-archiving practice. The breadth of adoption and depth of commitment are not directly correlated within the disciplines. Determining when self-archiving has become a habit is difficult. The opportunity to self-archive far exceeds the practice, and much of what is self-archived is not aligned with publisher policy. Policy appears to influence neither the decision to self-archive nor the article version that is self-archived. Because of the potential legal ramifications, faculty must be convinced that copyright law and publisher policy are important and persuaded to act on that conviction.

Research reveals that academic libraries are not meeting user needs and expectations for easy access to online library resources. Remote users are particularly dissatisfied. Survey results indicate that the technologies currently deployed to support off-campus users are inadequate and problematic for both users and libraries. A new approach is required to improve service quality. The Internet2 Shibboleth software offers a viable alternative.

This article places the struggle to open access to the dissertation in the context of the crisis in doctoral education and the transition from print to digital literacy. It explores the underlying cultural calcification and agoraphobia that deter engagement with openness. Solving the problems will require overhauling the curriculum and conventions of doctoral education. Opening access to dissertations is an important first step, but insufficient to end the crisis. Only opening other dimensions of the dissertation -the structure, media, notion of authorship, and methods of assessment -can foster the digital literacy needed to save PhD programs from extinction. If higher education institutions invested heavily in remedying obsolete practices, the remedies would reverberate throughout the academy, accelerate advancement in the disciplines, and revolutionize scholarly publishing. The article ends with a discussion of the significant role librarians could play in facilitating needed changes given appropriate institutional commitment.

Setting and Objectives: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) recently planned and implemented a project to help CMU researchers get an Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) and to enable administrators to integrate the ORCIDs into university systems. This article describes and assesses the planning, performance, and outcome of this initiative, branded ORCID @ CMU. Design and Methods: The article chronicles why and how ORCID was integrated at CMU, including the rationale for changes in strategic plans. It assesses researcher participation in the project using transaction log and content analyses, and the performance of the ORCID project team using recommendations in the Jisc ORCID project report, frankly reporting the team's successes and failures. The article concludes with lessons learned that should inform ORCID integration projects and expectations at other institutions. Results: The ORCID @ CMU web application was a great success. However, the project team did not allow enough time to prepare or devote enough attention to advocacy. The marketing message was not sufficiently persuasive and the marketing channels were not particularly effective. The overall participation rate in ORCID @ CMU was far below the target of 40%, though participation in many demographics exceeded the goal. Conclusions: Strategic planning does not guarantee success. Secure more than lip service from senior administrators. Recruit champions from across the institution. Develop a message that resonates with researchers. Allow sufficient time to prepare. Empower the project manager. Start with the low hanging fruit. Develop special outreach to doctoral students and postdocs.