Slide decks from the June 19 2017 Liaison Update Forum
- Stephanie Orfano and Mariya Maistrovskaya: Unpaywall and other tools to bypass publisher paywalls.
- Gail Nichol, Mindy Thuna, Klara Maidenberg, Susan Barker, Heather Cunningham, Stephanie Orfano. Metrics & the University Professor Submissions
Slide deck from the staff presentation in March 2017 by Weijing Yuan, Marlene van Ballegooie, Klara Maidenberg
Do you wonder what happens behind the scenes to acquire and manage access to e-resources? Are you curious to know why some resources have multiple access points and some have various restrictions? Have you heard talk of the COUNTER standard and wish you knew what it was and how to use it? If so, we hope you’ll join us for a presentation titled The eResources Lifecycle. This presentation will help you become familiar with the e-resource management workflow and will cover licensing, access, assessment and associated challenges.
From the April SHARE Update, this posting by Megan Pottersbush, 2016-17 National Digital Stewardship Resident (NDSR) at the Association of Research Libraries:
“Although I enter research consultations with questions in mind—and often on paper if there is a particular library or technical goal to illuminate, I try not to assume that my current favorite tool or tools will be the best answer to whatever the researcher’s current challenge might be or even that I already know the right solution to a given challenge. Instead, I gather resources and best practices throughout my work and mentally file them away to call on when the situation warrants it. My goal is to better understand researchers’ workflows and challenges from a human-centered service perspective, and to adapt my questions and solutions to the needs I hear arise in their answers—always seeking to gain a better understanding.”
Read the full post
This guide, created by Will Heikamp, was introduced at CTSI this week:
Accessible Learning Object Design Guide
It’s specifically meant to support those people using Articulate Storyline to design online learning objects in compliance with WCAG 2.0 AA Web Accessibility standards.
Thank you to Eveline Houtman for providing this resource.
An infographic about the University of Toronto’s Research and Innovation Ecosystem has been published by the Office of the Vice-President, Research and Innovation.
The infographic illustrates the relationships between funding support, research, innovation, teaching, and community engagement at U of T. It includes lots of great statistics about the university!
Thank you to Klara Maidenberg for sharing this.
Liaisons and other librarians working with faculty should be aware of Elsevier’s recent release of a new bibliometric, called the CiteScore Index (CSI). This metric will be a direct competitor to Thomson Reuters’ (now Clarivate Analytics’) ubiquitous Journal Impact Factor (JIF). The metrics are similar in that they both purport to measure the impact of academic journals based on the ratio between citable content published in the journal to citations to the journal.
While the JIF is based on content indexed in the Web of Science database, CSI will be based on the content in Scopus, which indexes a significantly larger number of titles (22,000 titles compared to 11,000).
If a journal’s impact is a consistent and measurable attribute, it stands to logic that its impact rank and score would be very similar regardless of who calculates the metric. However, preliminary analyses are showing that this is not the case. Librarians might wish to read the findings of early comparisons by Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin West (developers of yet another metric, the EigenFactor). Surprising no one, they report that Elsevier journals seem to enjoy a boost in ranking using the new CiteScore, while the scores for Nature and Springer journals (now owned by the same company, and a major competitor to Elsevier journals in the space) are lower than what you might expect given their Impact Factors. Additionally, journals published by Emerald, which performed poorly compared to journals from other publishers in the same disciplines during our own analysis, have also seen a boost from the new metric.
These findings underscore the fact that reputational metrics are neither impartial nor objective and are subject to the influences of the entities that produce them. Librarians should be prepared to engage in critical evaluation of these metrics and to answer questions from faculty.
(Thank you to Klara Maidenberg, Assessment Librarian, for providing this information.)
The Liaison Update Forum on Oct. 4 featured short presentations by UTL’s functional specialists, who explained what they do and how their services can be useful to liaisons. Below is a list of speakers and any slides or resources they provided with their presentation.
Suggestions for Improving the Connection between Functional and Liaison Librarians
At table discussions after the presentations, a number of suggestions came forward on how to advance collaborations between functional specialists and liaison librarians:
- invite liaisons who may not regularly teach, to co-teach or be present during information literacy workshops
- create a directory of functional specialists in Confluence
- functionals could do more with liaison clusters during the pilot – come in to talk more about opportunities
- highlight some of the tools that liaisons could promote or use (e.g. Omeka, Islandora) as spotlight articles in In the Loop – a way of showcasing these tools to staff who may not be aware of them
- create a visualization/flow chart of a digital project, from genesis to execution – to illustrate how projects come to be, and the path to execution and completion. This could serve as a model to faculty members who may want to make their own collections of content/images available online.
- Add the work of functional specialists to the Library Resources for Faculty guide, to better highlight their work and increase awareness
In spring 2016, the School of Graduate Studies (SGS) held focus groups for first-year Master and PhD students to learn more about this cohort’s needs. The first focus group topic was about library resources and services, and seven students attended to share their experiences. Guided questions to get the group thinking about their library experiences were as follows:
- What type of challenges do you face when looking for or using information and research?
- Talk to us about how you use the library – both physically and virtually.
- What would you like to see offered at the library?
- What are your frustrations in using the library?
This focus group activity was an opportunity for the libraries to think about how graduate students find and use research help, and how we can make this process easier. The SGS graduate student focus group feedback slides, which were presented at the July Library Teaching & Learning Committee meeting and the August Reference Services Committee meeting, outline the key findings.
The handout Best Practices for Designing Research Assignments was prepared for the CTSI Course Design Institute 2016.
Thank you to Courtney Lundrigan for providing the handout.
From Navroop Gill:
Yesterday [June 16] at our meeting, I shared a little about the speakers I had seen at WILU, David Brier & Vicky Lebbin who are at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Their approach to information literacy incorporates short stories and drawings which they have found to be highly engaging methods for students.
I’ve attached their handouts which provide ideas of how to structure lessons using these techniques ( just a note: they had read through hundreds of short stories to find ones that were suitable for IL!)
Their articles if you’re interested:
Brier, D. J., & Lebbin, V. K. (2015). Learning information literacy through drawing. Reference Services Review, 43(1), 45-67 http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/505223
Brier, D. J., & Lebbin, V. K. (2004). Teaching information literacy using the short story. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 381-385. doi:10.1108/00907320410569734 http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/505227