Abstract:Given the rising costs of journal subscriptions and the difficulty that authors have in retaining rights to their own works, reform in the scholarly publishing industry is needed. This article, the first in a two-part series, presents an overview of the crisis in scholarly communication and discusses the groundwork that must be laid in order to develop successful programs to address the crisis on college and university campuses. As the de facto centers of scholarship and research on campus, libraries must educate faculty and advocate for more sustainable publishing models. Programs developed by the Boston Library Consortium and its member institutions are discussed.

No abstract

Abstract:This article, the second in a two-part series, focuses on the roles that various library departments can and should play in the development of a robust scholarly communication program. It discusses how the crisis in scholarly communication affects different work areas and groups of staff. A whole-library approach to addressing the crisis can reveal how each department's responsibilities require management of different scholarly communication issues. The article also addresses the ways in which technical services is particularly impacted by the crisis in scholarly communication in order to provide a more in-depth analysis of how a discrete work area within the library experiences the crisis.

reflects the combined input of the authors listed here (in alphabetical order by last name) as well as contributions from other OSI2017 delegates. The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the individual authors listed here, nor their agencies, trustees, officers, or staff.

/ Workgroup QuestionWhat are the impacts of Sci-Hub and other rogue solutions on open access and what is the future of this approach, which may be gaining new mainstream support (noting for instance Wellcome's recent funding of ResearchGate). What new resources should the scholarly community develop (and how) that would be useful and legal additions to our progress toward open (a new blacklist for instance, or new repositories)? This group will also integrate (to the extent possible) ideas raised by the information overload workgroup from OSI 2016.