Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of an electronic noise-monitoring device (NoiseSign) at reducing noise levels in quiet study areas in an academic library. Design/methodology/approach – Surveys and decibel-level measurements were used to measure the perceived and objective noise levels, respectively, in both an intervention and a control area of two major branch libraries. Patrons’ perception of noise was measured with a passive paper and online survey, which asked patrons to rate the current noise level and their desired noise level. The actual noise measurements were collected twice a day with a hand-held decibel reader for 60 seconds and then corroborated after the intervention with automatically logged decibel readings from the noise monitor device in the two intervention areas. The authors conducted one-way ANOVA’s to determine if the results were significant. Findings – The NoiseSign had no statistically significant effect on either actual noise levels or user perceptions of noise in the library. The surveys comments and anecdotal observation of the spaces while doing measurements did reveal that noise in the quiet study areas was not the primary source of complaints. Originality/value – In spite of many proposed solutions to reducing noise in libraries, there has been very little research in this area. This is the first study to examine the effectiveness of using a noise-monitoring device in reducing noise levels at an academic library.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a noticeable increase of crowdsourcing projects in cultural heritage institutions, where digital technologies are being used to open up their collections and encourage the public to engage with them in a very direct way. Libraries, archives, and museums have long had a history and mandate of outreach and public engagement but crowdsourcing marks a move towards a more participatory and inclusive model of engagement. If a library wants to start a crowdsourcing project, what do they need to know?This article is written from a Canadian library perspective with the goal to help the reader engage with the current crowdsourcing landscape. This article's contribution includes a literature review and a survey of popular projects and platforms, followed by a case study of a crowdsourcing pilot completed at the McGill Library. The article pulls these two threads of theory and practice together, with a discussion of some of the best practices learned through the literature and real-life experience, giving the reader

The dominance of commercial publishers (Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon 2015) has led to a discussion in Canada focusing on alternative models for supporting independent, non-commercial, scholarly journals. Although small in number, these journals represent an important contribution to Canadian and global scholarship. They also act as a counterbalance to the increasingly for-profit nature of scholarly publishing. Despite their importance, there exists no definitive list of journals of this nature in Canada, making analysis and understanding of their characteristics difficult.In order to address this gap, the researchers undertook an analysis of the websites of 485 Canadian, independent, scholarly journals. Independent was defined as journals which are not affiliated with a commercial publisher. The researchers gathered data for each journal on their access type (e.g., closed, open access), subject area, size and composition of the editorial team, and any affiliation(s). This data was then analyzed to create a portrait of these journals with these themes. The researchers found that most of these journals were affiliated with at least one organization, with over half being associated with two or more. They also discovered that affiliations varied depending on the discipline and that the size of the editorial team was correlated to the access type. Journals were predominantly in the humanities and social sciences, and the majority were open access (OA) without article processing charges (APCs).While the focus of this study is on Canadian journals, this article provides a framework for other researchers to examine non-commercial, independent publishing in their own countries. Its results also provide preliminary data which may inspire future avenues of research, particularly into models for non-APC, open access journals as well as the editorial board structure and size for independent journals.

The goal of this paper is to document how labour is divided and compensated (both monetarily and non-monetarily) in independent, Canadian scholarly journals in order to inform future research on sustainability in academic publishing. We define independent as journals that are not affiliated with a commercial publisher, and Canadian as journals that have more than one third of their editorial boards at a Canadian institution. Earlier papers suggest that most independent, scholarly journals run primarily on volunteer labour, with little compensation (Edgar and Willinsky, 2010) or as Pooley (2019) suggests “[platinum OA journals] limp along, with estimable doggedness, but are often one devoted editor away from the digital graveyard”. As labour is the essential for the continued success of independent journals, understanding the depth (i.e. how many positions; how many hours per position), scope (i.e. which tasks are undertaken and who is responsible for them), and cost (monetary or non-monetary) of labour will be critical in understanding and ensuring these journals’ success, longevity, and sustainability. To investigate current practices, the authors distributed a survey to 488 Canadian journals meeting the inclusion criteria. The survey was composed of two sections: how labour is divided at a journal (i.e. how many positions are there, what are the responsibilities of these positions, and how many hours/week are dedicated to these positions) and compensation (i.e. does the journal provide monetary or non-monetary compensation to members of its editorial team, which positions receive compensation, and what is the source of these funds). The authors received 119 responses, for a 25% response rate.

When the University of Alberta Library hired its first Wikimedian-in-Residence (WIR) in 2019, the team had difficulty finding detailed information about how to plan for a WIR and set up the role for success. This chapter details two Wikipedia residencies that served as a guide for the Alberta team in building their WIR project. Case studies of the University of Toronto and Concordia University in Montréal are presented alongside a case study of the University of Alberta. Each study includes details about how the role was approved and funded, how hiring decisions were made, how the WIR focused their efforts, and the impact at their institution. Together, these three examples demonstrate the variety of options for funding and hiring a WIR role and for the focus of the WIR’s work in their term. The chapter poses concrete questions for librarians considering implementing a WIR role at their institution and offers recommendations from each WIR experience as guidance in answering those questions.