Current Cites

February 2013

Edited by Roy Tennant

http://currentcites.org/2013/cc13.24.2.html

Contributors: Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Alison Cody, Peter Hirtle, Leo Robert Klein, Roy Tennant


Alabi, Jaena, Rhonda  Huisman, and Meagan  Lacy, et. al."By and for Us: The Development of a Program for Peer Review of TeachingCollaborative Librarianship  4(4)(February 2013): 165-174. (http://collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/view/213/154). - In this article, the authors - a group of seven pre-tenure librarians at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) - discuss the creation of a small group reviewing one anothers' library instruction sessions. The authors walk through the various literature on peer review of teaching, along the way discussing how they cherrypicked bits and pieces of other programs to develop one that worked for them. While the process they created is not explicitly tied to the tenure system - in fact, the group sprang up organically and without any guidance from administrators - it is still performing a valuable service, allowing these librarians to improve their teaching through observing and being observed by trusted peers. The flexibility and informality of the program appears to strengthen its value for those involved. - AC

Charbonneau, Deborah H., and Jonathan  McGlone. "Faculty Experiences with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, Compliance Issues, and Copyright PracticesJournal of the Medical Library Association  101(1)(January 2013): 21-25. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543125/). - Surveyed faculty members at Wayne State University who received NIH funding overwhelmingly supported open access in principle (92.4%). But only 27.7% of them paid more attention to author agreements as a result of the NIH public access policy, and 34.8% of them didn't examine the agreements before signing. Only 2.2% of them modified their author agreements. The authors note that: "Faculty confusion about the NIH policy and challenges with compliance were also evident. . . . Specifically, faculty NIH grant awardees noted that the time involved in deciphering confusing instructions, effort expended on contacting journal editors, and unclear journal policies were challenges reported in complying with the federal mandate." - CB

Klimpel, Paul. Free Knowledge Based on Creative Commons Licenses: Consequences, Risks and Side-Effects of the License Module   Berlin: Wikimedia Germany, February 2013.(http://openglam.org/files/2013/01/iRights_CC-NC_Guide_English.pdf). - Last summer I took exception to a law firm's use of something that I had licensed with a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license; I thought its use was decidedly commercial. It made me realize that I had to explore more what is meant by non-commercial. One of the best things I found was a report from German Wikipedia. Thanks to the efforts of the OpenGLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative, the report has now been translated into English. The author has a bias in favor of open content and would like everyone to use those CC licenses that foster it (which does not include, he argues, NC). But in the process of making his case, he presents a succinct and clear discussion of the CC licensing structure. He also gives examples of the harm that can arise from the use of an NC license. For example, did you know that NC-licensed content cannot be used in Wikipedia? We may not like the idea of someone making money from our content, but Klimpel suggests that the easy use of the NC license comes at a cost. - PH

Lynch, Clifford, Elk  Greifeneder, and Michael  Seadle. "Interactions Between Libraries and Technology Over the Past 30 Years: An Interview with Clifford Lynch 23.06.2012Library Hi Tech  30(4)(2012): 565-578. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831211285059). - Few have the length of perspective that Clifford Lynch has over the course of libraries automating in the last 30 years. While a student at Columbia University in 1975 he got his start in library computing, and not long afterward ended up at what was then the University Library Automation Program at the University of California in 1979. That division eventually became the California Digital Library after Clifford left for the Coalition for Networked Information. But meanwhile he had been instrumental in the development of the ground-breaking MELVYL system as well as the internetwork that tied together the 9-campus UC system. But don't make the mistake of thinking that this interview is all about the distant past -- far from it. Lynch ranges into the problems of today and tomorrow quite readily, making this a must-read piece for anyone interested in library technology. And if you are reading this citation, that surely must include you. - RT

Radford, Marie L, and Lynn S  Connaway. "Not Dead Yet! A Longitudinal Study of Query Type and Ready Reference Accuracy in Live Chat and IM ReferenceLibrary & Information Science Research  35(1)(January 2013): 2-13. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.08.001). - The authors provide a useful history of research in Virtual Reference Services as well as a detailed discussion of their own methods. They pull data from an enormous collection of QuestionPoint transcripts for two periods. These samples are then organized by type of question, accuracy of response, etc. The focus is on ready-reference but the overall context is assessment of IM and chat services and for this reason, well worth a read. - LRK

Weinberg, Michael. What's the Deal with Copyright and 3d Printing?  Washington, D.C.: Public Knowledge, February 2013.(http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting). - In January a mini-tempest arose over whether 3D printing and makerspaces were compatible with the mission of libraries. (You can find a overview of the discussion and relevant links here.) If librarians are going to be involved with 3D printing, then they are also going to have to think about copyright. Michael Weinberg's study is a remarkably clear and readable introduction to some of the most difficult concepts in intellectual property: the difference between copyright and patents; the severability of form from useful function; and the "merger doctrine." Weinberg's most important contribution is the "reminder that not everything – not even every digital thing – is protected by copyright." This report is a welcome addition to his earlier introduction to 3D printing It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology. - PH