Category Archives: General

IFLA’s Academic and Research Libraries (ARL) Standing Committee hosted its annual Hot Topics session on August 13, 2024.

Leave a reply

This post is by Lorraine J. Haricombe, who managed the Hot Topics program of the IFLA ARL Committee.

IFLA’s Academic and Research Libraries (ARL) Standing Committee hosted its annual Hot Topics session on August 13, 2024.The Hot Topics event is ARL’s signature event that attracts significant interest from WLIC attendees every year.  In the absence of WLIC in 2024, ARL hosted its Hot Topics session as an online webinar to accommodate a global audienceon zoom.

This year’s theme focused on Current & Future Literacies: Libraries Leading Literacy Development” with three speakers addressing three specific topics including: AI in LIS education; Advancing Biblio-Equity: Digital Preservation and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in a Post-Covid-19 World; and The Role of The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library in Global Transitions with a focus on advancing digital literacy.  Our three speakers represented different global regions including Uganda, the UK and Hong Kong.  Each speaker presented an eight-minute lightning talk via zoom to an online audience followed by a Q and A session where lively discussion ensued including comments in the chat box.  The three presentations and slides are listed below.

Presentation 1: AI in LIS Education in Uganda: A Response Strategy by Dr. Sarah Kaddu, Dean, East Africa School of Library and Information Science, here.

Presentation 2: Advancing Biblio-Equity: Digital Preservation and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in a Post-COVID-19 World by Alicia Wise, Executive Director of the CLOCKSS Archive, here.

Presentation 3: Advancing Literacy in the Digital Age: The Role of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Library in Global Transitions by Lily Y. Ko. Head, Research & Learning Support, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library, here.

This structure of the session mimicked the format we typically use in the in-person sessions at WLIC where the audience is seated in a large room at round tables and where they listen to lightning talks by three speakers for the first half of the hour-long session.  After the presentations, each speaker picks a table to engage in Q and A with those interested in their topic for the last half hour of the session.

As the team lead for ARL’s annual Hot Topics session, I would like to share my observations of the different experiences I have observed when the session was held in-person and online.

The annual in-person Hot Topics sessions at WLIC usually attract strong interest and offer lively and fluid conversations at round tables where the audience can engage directly with presenters. In-person sessions offer the audience the flexibility of walking around from table to table that facilitate collaborative brainstorming and different points of view and where creative solutions can be shared. They can also build positive relationships with other colleagues from different global regions. The round table structure is intentional to ensure equity and inclusion of all voices in the room. The impact of these interactions cannot be overstated as colleagues learn from and directly share their stories with others. People often stay and mingle or continue discussions long after the round table discussions have ended. At our last in person session in Rotterdam in August 2023 the Hot Topics session attracted more than 365 individuals in a large room with standing room only.  Despite the lack of round tables in that room on that day, attendees formed circles of small groups and continued their discussion long after the session ended. If the topic is of interest (and hot!), they are more likely to attend sessions when they are onsite. Simply put, those who invest in travel time and costs to attend WLIC are there to listen, learn, engage and network with others.  The downside of in-person meetings is that only a small percentage of librarians globally attend WLIC while the larger professional community is left out.  Social media and recordings of the presentations have been helpful to ameliorate this challenge. Hot Topics session recordings are usually available on YouTube soon after the IFLA WLIC meeting. See: YouTube: here

In the absence of WLIC in 2024, ARL-SC offered its annual Hot Topics session in the form of a zoom webinar.  While the webinar was free it required registration and more than 200 people registered.  One of the challenges with a global zoom webinar is to determine the best date and time for the event. Even with a firm date, the time will never suit all those who may be interested. Despite more than 200 registrants for the event the size of the online audience varied between 65-67 during the one-hour session which was held on August 13 at 12h00-13h00 (GMT). The zoom session provided an equal opportunity for many more professionals to attend the presentations, at no cost or time to travel to a specific destination. However, challenges with online connectivity, environmental distractions, conflicts, or the time of the session (day or night) are all solid reasons why more people did not or could not participate in the onlinewebinar.

ARL was among the first groups to use IFLA’s new zoom platform. Thanks to IFLA staff we received excellent training and support to manage the new platform for an effective, engaging and seamless webinar experience.  The new platform allowed us to promote the speakers before the event including a brief bio and crisp images for each. A nice feature of IFLA’s new platform allowed speakers to gather backstage to check in and to discuss protocols before going “on stage.” Similarly, they could “exit” the stage to return backstage.  Those who were backstage could hear all the presentations and make comments without being seen or heard.  One drawback of the experience was that presenters could not see the audience and all questions during the Q and A session were directed to speakers via chat.Unlike the in-person sessions, the zoom session was scheduled for one hour and left no flexibility for further discussion. We did not follow up with registrants or participants for their feedback,a feature that will be helpful to understand how to improve the online experience for future online sessions.

Pros and cons abound for online vs in-person meetings.  While I have listed more advantages for in person Hot Topics sessions than for the online zoom session, I am not promoting one over the other. Online sessions should not be ruled out, rather, we should try to maximize the accessibility and participation of in-person and online sessions and work to strike the right balance between in person and online meetings.

Paving way for Diamond Open Access Bilingual Monographs and Megajournal in Hong Kong and Greater China: The road so far

Leave a reply

This post is by Sue Fung, who is the Outreach and Engagement Librarian, Faculty Liaison Librarian (Arts & General Education) at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library

Open Books Hong Kong is the first Open Access (OA) Chinese monograph project, featuring a landmark collaboration among the libraries and university presses of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, and The University of Hong Kong. Coinciding with the Hong Kong Book Fair, nine books in the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences launched on 17 July 2024 and available for download on Open Books Hong Kong website. These Chinese-language works, authored by distinguished Hong Kong and international scholars, are freely accessible to the global community showcasing a commitment to the open dissemination of knowledge.

The project fills a gap in disseminating open-access monographs in Chinese-language representing a bold step towards a sustainable model for sharing the rich insights and discoveries of Chinese and international scholars. With the success of the first phase, more books will be openly accessible via this project in the coming months.

In our first step to develop and launch a Diamond Open Access Megajournal, the CUHK library has published a reflection paper entitled “Diamond Open Access Megajournal Project: Reflection from CUHK Library.” This joint report with CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) is free to read and download here.

CUHK is dedicated to spreading knowledge through research across various disciplines, benefiting Hong Kong, China, and the global community. The CUHK Library supports this mission by fostering an open, inclusive, and equitable research environment.

The Diamond OA Megajournal Project aims to create a bilingual platform for research in Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities, focusing on the Greater Bay Area’s cultural heritage and contemporary issues. This project follows the Diamond OA model, which is free for both authors and readers, promoting equity in publishing.

The report outlines the project’s planning phase, comparing Open Access developments in Europe and the US with China. It addresses challenges including data security, stakeholder engagement, and financial sustainability, and highlights CUHK’s strategies for effective governance and quality control. CNKI also highlighted the potential strengths that an established publisher could bring to such a platform, including bilingual technical prowess and robust hosting capabilities.

Hong Kong has a well-established global reputation as a hub for exchange and innovation. Building on these strengths and on Hong Kong’s strong educational and research infrastructure, the city could also be a regional beacon for Open Access. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library will continue to work in partnership with institutions in the city and in the wider region to promote Open Science. If you are interested in collaborating or supporting initiatives in these areas, please contact Lily Ko ([email protected]).

 

Ranking of Academic Libraries

Leave a reply

This post is generously contributed by Dr. Sami ÇUHADAR, Director of Libraries, İstanbul Bilgi University, Turkey.

In the ’90s, when I first began studying librarianship, my professors emphasized that libraries consist of five essential elements: building, budget, staff, users, and collection. Many library science studies I encountered also highlighted these criteria. National and international reports that gather data on academic libraries and assess them, such as ARL, SCONUL, IFLA library performance indicators and the Turkish Council of Higher Education (CoHE) Monitoring and Assessment Report, are also based on these generally five basic elements. While there have been some positive developments in evaluating academic libraries, no fundamental changes have occurred.

Advancements in information and communication technologies have significantly impacted libraries. Printed collections are increasingly being replaced by electronic resources and face-to-face reference services are being supplanted by online reference services or ChatBots.

It is essential to enhance the visibility of academic libraries, review their business processes and revise the evaluation criteria in light of changing conditions. In addition to the current library evaluation criteria, new metrics such as usage, satisfaction, technology, visibility on the web, services/reference and contribution to society should be included to assess academic libraries comprehensively.

Beyond evaluating academic libraries through reports, an international library ranking system would be more comprehensive and beneficial. Ranking is the process of arranging a set of elements based on their degree of success, achievement or competitive outcomes based on specific criteria. Ranking contributes to identifying areas for improvement in institutions, fosters continual improvement and facilitates the development of a competitive environment. Furthermore, it enables institutions to enhance their visibility and allows for the periodic renewal and update of the criteria for evaluation and ranking according to contemporary conditions.

Various rankings are conducted in numerous different sectors. Countries have historically been categorized into developed, developing or underdeveloped based on criteria like GDP, labor force and economic indicators. Organizations such as the OECD assess educational systems through programs like PISA to rank countries by educational performance. Universities worldwide are ranked by multiple institutions using criteria such as academic performance, research output and teaching quality. Scientific journals are also categorized by impact and citations. These rankings are crucial, especially for universities, as they enhance visibility, academic success and competitiveness. The data collected includes international collaborations, research output and student and faculty metrics, influencing strategic planning and decision-making for academics and students choosing institutions.

The creation of a ranking system for evaluating academic libraries would be justified. Academic library ranking systems can make significant contributions by establishing new basic and sub-criteria. The university library ranking fulfills several significant roles:

– It serves as a tool for identifying areas that institutions can improve.

– It fosters ongoing improvement and cultivates a competitive environment.

– It boosts institutional visibility and periodically updates evaluation criteria.

– It enhances the efficiency and transparency of services.

– It reinforces communication channels between libraries and university management.

– It streamlines the collection, analysis and distribution of qualitative data on libraries.

– Ultimately, it contributes to enhancing university library services.

In this context, creating a ranking system for university libraries that excel in providing cutting-edge information services to advance the production of scientific knowledge can elevate the significance of libraries and promote competition by providing access to library-related data and advanced services.

The significance of ranking systems is often emphasized in numerous articles and discussions. According to the European University Association’s report, “Rankings have acted as a “wake-up call” to the higher education community in terms of their competitive position, at national and international level, and the necessity to enhance institutional intelligence and develop an evidence-base for strategic decision-making.” Additionally, Prof. Dr. Ural Akbulut, co-founder of University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP), stated “We cannot achieve our goals without knowing our current position. Rankings provide the coordinates of our current location“.

Ranking university libraries is essential for widespread information dissemination, technology utilization, infrastructure improvement and fostering a collaborative academic community. This approach can significantly enhance the credibility, transparency and global impact of library rankings, leading to continual improvement of library services worldwide and a meaningful impact on the academic landscape.

This topic is open for further discussion and stands to be a new frontier in the assessment of academic libraries.

Embrace AI in Libraries: Freeing Staff for Meaningful Work While Preserving Human Touch

Leave a reply

This post is by Corey Halaychik, who is the Head of Content Management at The University of Texas at Austin Libraries and the Founder of The Library Collective, an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to education and innovation for better librarianship.

Make no mistake about it, Artificial Intelligence (AI) will replace some tasks and jobs performed by library workers. This shouldn’t cause panic; instead, it should be celebrated. AI can free library workers to do more important and meaningful work. Libraries should not use AI just because it’s trendy or because other places do. Instead, they should consider their unique situations, like skill levels, staffing, funding, and mission.

And while AI can be used in many parts of a library, libraries should be careful not to let it negatively impact their public services. Human interactions make libraries special to users and are important for building connections. Libraries should therefore avoid using AI where a “human touch” is needed or looks better.

Using AI to support teams like technical services, which don’t usually interact with the public, can be a better idea. This way, AI won’t reduce human interaction with users, and it can help these teams work more efficiently. This allows libraries to invest in people where it matters most and allow AI to handle routine jobs.

The University of Texas at Austin Libraries’ Content Management team is embracing this idea. They are exploring ways to use AI to reduce repetitive and simple tasks like getting library resources, reviewing licenses, and creating metadata. Their approach has been focused on people from the start, with ideas coming directly from the staff performing the work.

For example, they are exploring the use of AI to catalog a legacy collection of about 150,000 sound recordings on vinyl and CD. Over the last 20 years, only about 6,000 of these items have been cataloged. At this rate, it would take another 480 years to finish. AI could help by using information from the vinyl jackets or CD covers to create basic catalog records. This would make the collection easier for users to find and use. By letting AI handle these tasks, catalogers could focus on more important and original work.

Figure 1 A row of vinyl records, meticulously shelved and waiting to be cataloged as part of the University of Texas at Austin Libraries’ legacy collection of approximately 150,000 sound recordings.

Figure 2 Bins brimming with CDs await cataloging, part of the University of Texas at Austin Libraries’ extensive legacy collection of approximately 150,000 sound recordings.

This pilot project was suggested by the team of music catalogers who know the value of the legacy collection but struggle to work on it while handling new materials. During discussions, they shared their frustration about spending time on routine tasks when they could be doing original cataloging, which better uses their skills.

These situations, where workers know their time would be better spent on meaningful tasks instead of “busy work,” are perfect for AI. Libraries should make sure AI implementation is guided by the workers who do the tasks, not just by administrators or IT staff. While administrators and IT staff have important roles to play in implementing AI, the ideas for task automation and integration should come from the workers’ needs. This way, AI will support workers and make their jobs easier.

To help connect the ideas for using AI with actually putting them into action, libraries should consider creating new jobs focused on AI integration. These AI specialists would be equal parts investigators, facilitators, project managers, and futurists. They would find ways to use AI in different library tasks and make sure it’s successfully added to service operations. Such a position would be especially valuable on a technical services team because it would provide crucial technical expertise and guidance on the most effective ways to implement AI. It could significantly enhance the team’s ability to innovate and improve operations through advanced technology.

In conclusion, AI offers libraries tremendous potential if used thoughtfully and strategically. While it can be applied broadly across library services, it’s important not to implement AI just because others are doing it. Libraries should focus on using AI to free up workers for more meaningful tasks, like the repetitive jobs often done by technical services teams. This approach can enhance library efficiency and effectiveness, ultimately benefiting both staff and users alike.

 

ARL Continues to Support Attendance at IFLA Events

This post is by Mimi Calter, Vice Provost & University Librarian, Washington University Libraries in St. Louis and Chair of the ARL Section, for the ARL Division on the attendance grant Winners for the Information Summit, 2024.

For more than a decade, the Academic & Research Libraries section, supported by SAGE and ExLibris, has been able to provide attendance grants for the WLIC.  We’ve enjoyed managing this program and building relationships with our awardees over the years.  Though there will be no WLIC in 2024, ARL wants to continue to enable young professionals to attend IFLA events, and SAGE continues to support that work, so we are sponsoring attendance at two different programs this year.

First, we sponsored attendance at our own Division D mid-term program, Libraries Bridging Boundaries: Challenges & Strategies for Global Openness.  We did not follow our traditional review format with this sponsorship, instead supporting the program overall to allow residents of Türkiye to attend at a reduced rate.  We were happy to learn that than half of the attendees at this very successful program were local.  A great success.  See this post for more information about the mid-term event.

In addition, we are sponsoring three attendees to the 2024 IFLA Information Futures Summit in Brisbane, Australia.  For Information Futures we have followed our traditional attendance grant model, though we limited the regional attendance to Oceania.  The three attendees were chosen from the pool of applicants and will participate actively in the summit.  Following the event, each will write a blog post about their engagement which will be featured here on the ARL blog.

Our winners are:

  • Ane Ah Poe, Knowledge Management Assistant, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
  • Pham Ba Toan, Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh, University of Science Library
  • Adi Ela Radini Davuilevu, Library Information Assistant, Fiji National University

We look forward to hearing more from our awardees after the Information Futures Summit.

Division D Joint Mid-Term in Istanbul, Türkiye

This post is by Mimi Calter, Vice Provost & University Librarian, Washington University Libraries in St. Louis and Chair of the ARL Section.

I had the pleasure to join several members of the IFLA Academic and Research Libraries (ARL) section in participating in the Division D Joint Mid-Term program in Istanbul on June 5th through 7th, 2024.  The theme of the program was Libraries Bridging Boundaries: Challenges & Strategies for Global Openness, and the program did not disappoint.

ARL was one of four sponsoring units within Division D, the others being the Science & Technology Section, the Acquisition & Collection Development Section, and the Library Publishing SIG.  The session was hosted by Koç University at their Center for the Study of Anatolian Civilization in the heart of Istanbul, and participants from all the sponsoring units were joined by colleagues from throughout Turkey and the Mediterranean region.  There were about 80 registered participants for the program, and it was a great opportunity to meet people and make new connections.  I can attest that the group had some lively conversations during the meeting breaks and meals.

Three keynote presentations, which provided regional perspectives on the state of open research were highlights of the program.  The first, from Prof. Dr. Yaşar Tonta, Emeritus Professor, Department of Information Management at Hacettepe University, looked at Türkiye.  On day 2, Saray Córdoba who is now retired from the Universidad de Costa Rica, but remains active in researching the areas of Scientific Communication, Open Science, and Open Access, discussed the topic from the Central American perspective.  And on day 3, Dr. Gracian Chimwaza of South Africa gave an African perspective on the topic.  All three presenters are excited by the potential of open research, though there are significant  challenges to building the infrastructure needed to support it.

In between the keynotes we had some fantastic panel discussions, and those panel discussions included presentations from ARL members Mary Ngure and Jérôme Fronty.  The presentations made clear that open research and open communication are considered core objectives for most research libraries.  While there are many shared challenges to achieving fully open research communications, and the Open Access movement has not yet achieved its full potential, there are lots of local success stories.  Jelena Bokovac presented some inspirational programs from Croatia, and Çiğdem Yıldırım presented on initiatives at our host organization, Koç University.

An important takeaway for me was the importance of connection and interoperability between these systems.  Regional and discipline-centric approaches to openness are beneficial, but risk becoming siloed.  We need to find ways for these local successes to be shared, and sharable, resources.  I look forward to future conversations and ways to advance that goal.

 

PIDs in Australia

This post is by Matthias Liffers. He is the Product Manager for the Persistent Identifier Services at the Australian Research Data Common

Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) are a core component of a national information infrastructure and key to world-class research and innovation. In 2024, the Australian Research Data Commons released the 2024 Australian National PID Strategy – developed through a coordinated, comprehensive and collaborative process and informed by international developments and the international PID environment.

But what is a PID? It is a globally unique, unambiguous, long-lasting reference to a particular person or thing in the research ecosystem. A typical PID consists of two parts: the identifier itself, which is a unique string of characters and/or numbers; and an accompanying public metadata record.

For ease of use, most PIDs can be displayed as a URL that you can visit in your browser in order to access the metadata record. For example, the PID that refers to me (Matthias Liffers, the author of this post) is https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3639-2080. If you visit that URL, you can see a human-readable representation of the metadata record known as a landing page.

I have only one ORCID, and that ORCID will always refer to me. If another person called Matthias Liffers creates an ORCID, they will get their own. Admittedly, my name isn’t very common, but it makes more sense if you think all the researchers that are called Kim Lee or John Smith.

There are many PIDs, each suited to identifying a particular type of thing. An ORCID iD, for example, is designed for researchers and other contributors to research, whereas a DOI is more appropriate for a research output like a publication, a dataset, or a piece of research software. There are also PIDs for organisations (ROR ID) and projects (RAiD).

Why are there so many different types of PID? Because the metadata required for a human is quite different to the metadata you would need for a publication. The metadata schema for each type of PID is tailored to the type of thing you want to identify.

Generally, the person or organisation responsible for a particular thing will mint – create and assign – a PID to it. For example, a researcher would create their own ORCID and keep it through their whole career, whereas a publisher would mint DOIs for the articles in their journals. Items deposited into trustworthy repositories like Dryad, Figshare, and Zenodoreceive DOIs. If you work at a research institution, you might have access to an institutional repository that can also assign DOIs.

You might have noticed that my ORCID record contains references to my current and past employers, my education, and my publications. This demonstrates where the real power of PIDs lies – being able to make links between PIDs, so that you can establish unambiguous relationships between authors and their papers, their dataset, their affiliations, their projects, and their funding.

This global network of relationships is known as the research graph and, as more researchers and research organisations apply PIDs to their contributions to research, it gets easier to find research, establish its trustworthiness, and measure its impact on society.

To learn more about the use of PIDs in Australia, visit the Australian National PID Strategy and Roadmap website. On top of the PID Strategy, the ARDC is leading the development of RAiD – the Research Activity Identifier, as the global Registration Authority for ISO 23527:2022.

Australia isn’t the only country working on a National PID Strategy. A couple of weeks after the publication of this blog post, PIDfest 2024 will be taking place at the National Technical Library of the Czech Republic in Prague from 11-13 June 2024. It is an opportunity for PID providers like ORCID, DataCite, Crossref and the Australian Research Data Commons to come together, share knowledge, and work on pain points to make sure that when someone turns on the tap for research information, it flows.