Below are two checklists to be used to guide decision making on collections budget investment in open access collections, projects, initiatives and infrastructure. The checklists are based on the UC STAR criteria and Yale Guidelines for evaluating open access collections for funding.
Please note: The reviewer should fill out the checklists as well as they can using all the information available to them. There may be information that is not available or cannot be determined and some checklist items will require a subjective assessment by the reviewer.
These checklists will be used solely as a tool to help better understand the resource under consideration and inform discussion in the Collections Committee. The presence or absence of any particular checklist element will not be the determining factor in the Libraries’ investment. The checklists will be reviewed by the Collections Committee to better understand the resource and assess if it is aligned with the Libraries Open Access Statement. The Collections Committee will then make a determination on investment.
Section 1 checklist: required
This section is required and should be filled out for all open access resources/initiatives requiring financial support from the collections budget.
| Criteria | Yes/No/Not applicable/ Not determined | Notes or additional information |
|---|---|---|
| Resource is within the current collection development policy statement (i.e, would the Libraries purchase this content if it were fee-based to support the curricular and research needs of the UNLV community)? Note: there may be cases where the UNLV Libraries may support an initiative even when content may not match UNLV Libraries’ curricular and research needs. For example, when the initiative shows strong potential to shift the scholarly publishing ecosystem towards open. | ||
| The access model supports full global open access to the content. Note: If the access model does not yet support full open access but the model is a transitional stage to open access such as a transformational agreement, please add that information in the notes column. | ||
| In your opinion does the resource represent a transformative approach using the definition below: A resource can be considered to be transformative when it is developed principally to
| ||
| Does the resource/initiative provide information on its financial/business model (e.g. how will the resource/initiative be financed, what are the revenue streams etc.). | ||
| Perpetual access to purchased content is guaranteed regardless of the life of the platform; publisher/provides includes a preservation policy in place for the preservation of their open access titles. |
Section 2 checklist: supplemental information
This section is “supporting information” that should be reviewed and filled out as much as possible to better understand the resource under review.
| Criteria | Yes/No/Not applicable/Not determined | Notes or additional information |
|---|---|---|
| Has key forms of endorsement by respected advocacy organizations e.g. SPARC, ARL, ICOLC. | ||
| Investment by/supported by other academic institutions. | ||
| Governance: Resource/initiative is transparent about governance structures and administrative or leadership roles (e.g. board members, editors, etc.) are filled by scholars and academic community members who are influential and knowledgeable in the field. Sub-Question: Is there an opportunity for the Library to engage in governance? | ||
| Documented editorial policies. | ||
| Provision of reports or information to indicate the impact of the resource (e.g. alternative metrics, use reports). | ||
| Formal participation agreement or MOU that clarifies obligations of the parties. | ||
| Allows content creators to use Creative Commons licenses for their work (CC-BY preferred for text and CC0 preferred for data). |
Last updated 4/28/2022
