Several Factors of Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly Communication Functions. A Review of: Park, J.-H., & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 76-89. doi: 10.1353/scp.2011.0038

Objective – To identify and examine thefactors of library publishing services thatfacilitate scholarly communication.
Design – Analysis of library publishing serviceprograms.
Setting – North American research libraries.
Subjects – Eight research libraries selectedfrom the signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) CornellUniversity Library’s Center for InnovativePublishing; Dartmouth College Library’sDigital Publishing Program and ScholarsPortal Project; MIT Libraries’ Office ofScholarly Publishing and Licensing; ColumbiaUniversity Libraries’ Center for DigitalResearch and Scholarship; University ofMichigan Library’s Scholarly PublishingOffice; Duke University Library’s Office ofScholarly Communications; University ofCalgary Libraries and Cultural Resources’Centre for Scholarly Communication; andSimon Fraser University Library’s ScholarlyPublishing.
Methods – The authors used Roosendaal andGeurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarlycommunication to analyze and categorizelibrary publishing services provided bylibraries included in the study. The fourfunctions of scholarly communication includeregistration, certification, awareness, andarchiving.
Main Results – Analysis of the registration functions provided by library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research, ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets, technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars.
Conclusion – This study identified several services offered by these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services (certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing (archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.