No abstract

In June 2017, Jeffrey Beall published an opinion piece in Biochemia Medica titled “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.”1 While there are several elements of this publication that I find inaccurate or problematic, I’m choosing four specific themes within his piece to critique. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Jeffrey Beall’s direct supervisor at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Auraria Library and have been since I began working there in July 2015.

In order to better understand the factors that most influence where researchers deposit their data when they have a choice, we collected survey data from researchers who deposited phylogenetic data in either the TreeBASE or Dryad data repositories. Respondents were asked to rank the relative importance of eight possible factors. We found that factors differed in importance for both TreeBASE and Dryad, and that the rankings differed subtly but significantly between TreeBASE and Dryad users. On average, TreeBASE users ranked the domain specialization of the repository highest, while Dryad users ranked as equal highest their trust in the persistence of the repository and the ease of its data submission process. Interestingly, respondents (particularly Dryad users) were strongly divided as to whether being directed to choose a particular repository by a journal policy or funding agency was among the most or least important factors. Some users reported depositing their data in multiple repositories and archiving their data voluntarily.

Privacy is a long-held value of information professionals, but new technologies of the contemporary digital age pose new risks to privacy. In an effort to build participatory, profession-wide action in support of designing privacy-oriented library services, two groups were formed with the goal of generating ideas and sustaining action: the National Forum on Web Privacy and Web Analytics, and Digital Library Federation Technologies of Surveillance Working Group. In this paper, members of these two groups present case study descriptions and analysis via reflective self-assessment. The authors discuss how these groups can serve as models of participatory action for integrating the value of privacy into the design of library services, technologies, policy, and outreach.

DMPTool is a free, open source, online tool that helps users build a comprehensive and descriptive data management plan. DMPTool is tailored to be compliant with major grant funding agencies' requirements for data management plans, provide guidance for content, and link to additional resources that users might need to complete their plans. Institutions can subscribe (for free) to integrate customized text and resources into their researcher's plans using available campus services like institutional repositories, or set up a review system for plans associated with that institution.