Virgo Project Update: Virgo Classic, Course Reserves

The Virgo 4 team has an important announcement, new things to try out, and our usual request this month.

First, the announcement: the Virgo Classic service will be fully retired on January 14, 2020.

We are already hard at work replacing components of Virgo that rely on Virgo Classic functions:

  • In November, links from Virgo to Virgo Classic pages will be less noticeable, and we will post banners on Virgo Classic pages noting the pending retirement.
  • User interviews and web analytics show no Virgo operations remain that rely on Classic other than Course Reserves,  but if we missed your favorite, let us know right away at
  • As of January 2020, Course Reserves will no longer rely on Virgo Classic.

Try these new things in the Virgo 4 Prototype:

  1. Limit results to “Online” or “On Shelf”
    Try any Basic or Advanced search, then set Availability to show just items “Online” (available electronically) or “On Shelf” (physical items available for checkout)
    Availability On Shelf
  2. Bookmark search results in folders for use later
    Select the bookmark icon for any item displayed, log in via Netbadge if prompted, and save the item to a folder you create. See your saved bookmarks whenever you sign in to Virgo.
  3. See cover images for most materials.
  4. Article searches appear by relevance, and can be filtered by source.
    Select Articles from the Basic Search source dropdown, then See More Results at the bottom of article results.

    Filter by the facet of Publication to limit searching to a specific journal with results.
  5. Login via Netbadge to check library account status (see above).

And our usual request: thanks to all the folks who have provided feedback so far. Please share this post widely, and keep giving us input at

Up Next:

The next few features will be:

  • Improved author and title browsing
  • More sources available to search
  • User interface refinements

Library Resource has full Color, Archival Quality scans of Time and Life Magazines, including Ads

New! The Library offers full issues of Time and Life magazine online, cover to cover with all pictures and ads intact. Click “Research” at the top of the Library homepage; look in the A–Z list of online resources to find the Time Magazine Archive or Life Magazine Archive; at the EBSCO search page type search terms. All results will be from that publication.

You’ll have access to Time and Life from the early 20th century through the year 2000, available in a variety of formats. Time has digital full text and archival quality PDF scans that you can download, as well as audio for the visually impaired. Image-rich Life has PDF scans, allowing you to read articles and view images as they appeared when magazines first hit newsstands—ads and photos will enliven and enrich research into pop culture and media studies.

These articles depict history in the making, when outcomes were far from certain. In Time, President Harry S. Truman rails against the tactics employed by opponents of his “Fair Deal”: “I am going to keep right on working for better houses, better schools … and I don’t intend to be scared away by anybody who calls that program socialism” (“The Hired Man.” Time, 22 May 1950). A decade after Truman ordered the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military dismisses Atomic Energy Commission warnings of fallout’s deadly consequences as “based on the worst possible conditions, i.e., they assume that no one would take protective measures … old and simple steps are highly effective against the new and horrible peril …” (“The Fatal Fall-Out.” Time, 28 Feb.1955)

Images in Life capture police violence against marchers for civil rights in Selma, AL. When the U.S. Attorney General urges Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to cancel a second march, “he simply wouldn’t budge … ‘I had been agonizing and I made my choice,’ he said. ‘I decided it is better to die on the highway than to make a butchery of my conscience.'” (Douglas, Paul H. Life, 19 Mar. 1965, “Selma: Beatings start the Savage Season”)

Color photo from Life Magazine of police attack on peaceful protesters at the first Selma march, 1965

Peaceful protesters attacked by baton-wielding police at the first Selma march, 1965 (Douglas, Paul H. Life, 19 Mar. 1965, “Selma: Beatings start the Savage Season”)

Black and White photo from Life Magazine of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. meeting with other leaders to decide whether to hold 2nd Selma march

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. meets with other leaders to decide whether to hold 2nd Selma march.(Douglas, Paul H. Life, 19 Mar. 1965, “Selma: Beatings start the Savage Season”).

Cover photo from Life Magazine of a rally for voting rights across from the White House at the foot of a monument to slave-holding president Andrew Jackson

After Selma, a rally for voting rights across from the White House at the foot of a monument to slave-holding president Andrew Jackson. In 1813, Jackson fought Native Americans in Alabama to open the territory to slave-holding settlers (photo, “The Nation Surges to join the Negro on His March.” Life, 26 Mar. 1965).

Plans to Project Rotunda Planetarium began with discovery in Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library

Figures of constellations projected on the inner dome of the UVA Rotunda

According to an article in UVA Today, a plan by Ph.D. candidates Neal Curtis, Samuel Lemley, and Madeline Zehnder’s to project an early 19th century chart of the heavens on the inner dome of UVA’s Rotunda began when they discovered Thomas Jefferson’s proposal to do just that in an 1819 notebook in the Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library.

Jefferson’s suggestion that someone be hoisted close enough to the ceiling to place the stars there by hand, “in their position and magnitude copied exactly,” was accomplished at the November 1st symposium by running digital images from computers through 5 projectors.

At Friday’s symposium, Library research archivist Ervin L. Jordan joined professor of religious studies Jalane Schmidt, associate history professor Kirt von Daacke, and Commonwealth Professor of Architectural History Richard Guy Wilson in a panel discussion “The Rotunda, Revisited,” moderated by Louis Nelson, vice provost for academic outreach and architectural history professor.

The Rotunda Planetarium will be displayed in the evenings, Sunday through Tuesday during student study hours. The Dome Room will be open to the public from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on November 30, December 6, December 19, January 11, and February 1. The Ph.D. candidates hope to offer additional dates throughout the spring semester.

For more about the Rotunda Planetarium, please read “Ph.D. Students Transform Rotunda Into Planetarium, Realizing Jefferson’s Vision” (UVA Today 10/31/2019)

Open Access Policies, Big Deals, and Equity

Guest post from Brandon Butler, UVA Library Director of Information Policy. Cross-posted from The Taper

For this final post for Open Access Week 2019, I’d like to focus on one of the oldest and (IMO) coolest tricks in the open access playbook: the “open access policy.” It’s a bland name for a powerful legal maneuver, and to answer this year’s theme, “open for whom,” an OA policy can make the status quo scholarly publishing system open for authors in a way that preserves their freedom of choice about publishing venue by making an open option available regardless of venue. We can supercharge OA policies by combining them with tools like the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts, turning the abstractions in the policy into concrete gains for public access to knowledge.

But what is an open access policy? In copyright terms, an open access policy is a non-exclusive license, granted to the university on behalf of all faculty, permitting the university to collect, preserve, and make freely available the scholarly articles created by members of the faculty. Because the policy is a license (not a transfer), and it is not an exclusive license, the author retains her copyright and is free to publish the article anywhere else she chooses.

These policies have been adopted by 767 institutions, and the most popular model for such policies is the Harvard Open Access Policy. With an open access policy in place, faculty can publish wherever they like, including in subscription journals, and still make their research available in an open repository where any interested reader can find it. Creating this comprehensive, open record of knowledge, on infrastructure we control, is a key part of realizing the full potential of open access.

Many scholars support open access ideologically, and research shows a correlation between open access and higher citations. An equitable open access ecosystem should provide all scholars with a meaningful opportunity to choose open access, but several pressures in the system threaten to undermine that vision. Open access policies counteract those pressures, making OA more equitable for scholars in several ways.

Perhaps the most obvious threat to equity for scholars who wish to publish in the open is the imposition of publishing fees on authors. Models of open access where the author pays a fee to the publisher (an “article processing charge,” or APC) can place open access out of reach for authors who don’t have grant funding or institutional funds to defray the high (and fast-growing) costs of some APCs. Many researchers, institutions, and even entire fields of study (the humanities and most social sciences) simply don’t have access to the funds required to support an APC-dependent model of open access. With an open access policy in place, scholars can publish anywhere they like, including traditional subscription journals that do not charge author fees, and still make their work open in their institutional repository.

Another source of inequity in open access is the difficulty that some scholars (especially pre-tenure ones) may face in choosing to publish in open venues when publishing in closed ones may be important for their career prospects. Until the academy realigns its incentive structures, scholars will sometimes face tough choices between publishing open access and publishing in journals that act as a de facto credential in their field. Open access policies can solve the dilemma—publish in your chosen journal, and place the appropriate version in the repository.

A third source of inequity in open access is the lack of bargaining power that many scholars feel as they enter into negotiations with journal publishers. If that publisher is not open by default, then the author has to act as her own lawyer, modifying the contract or adding an addendum, and hoping her editor doesn’t get upset. I am often quick to remind folks that, in fact, they have more power than they think, and it never hurts to ask. Still, one of the chief legal benefits of an open access policy is that it sets the default expectation in favor of open access. Rather than the author having to ask to make her work open, putting a policy in place shifts the burden to the publisher, who must ask for a waiver of the policy (or an embargo of the deposit), or else the university’s license will stand.

Make no mistake: open access policies are not a panacea. Perhaps most importantly, they are not self-executing. Depositing a version of your article in Libra is an extra step in the publishing workflow, and for many scholars it’s one that doesn’t yet come naturally. Savvy publishers have also learned that they can soften the impact of these policies by demanding waivers or embargoes as a matter of routine. That’s why an open access policy has to be part of a larger campus strategy that includes, for example, a commitment to the principles in the MIT Framework. Most importantly, the Framework shifts the burden of deposit to the publisher, as part of the services we pay (handsomely) for in our subscriptions. Equally key, though, is the Framework’s insistence that the institution’s authors retain their copyright and cannot be forced to waive the open access policy as a condition of publication. Taken together, an OA policy and the MIT Framework describe a world where authors are free to publish wherever they like, and the products of their research are free to all who wish to access it.

UVA is halfway there. We have endorsed the MIT Framework, but we do not, yet, have a true open access policy. About a decade ago, the faculty senate passed a resolution encouraging faculty to publish open access and to use Libra, but that resolution lacks the legal teeth required to grant the licenses that power a systemic, automated approach to populating the repository. Adopting an open access policy would be a powerful step in favor of equitable open access at UVA.

Open Access Week posts will appear here, on the Library news blog, as well as on The Taper, where you can read more about issues surrounding Copyright and Information Policy.

Rules for Making Big Deals – Inside Higher Ed

The University of Virginia, along with six other Virginia research libraries and many others outside the state, has endorsed MIT’s “Framework for Publisher Contracts”, released earlier this week. The framework sets forth guiding principles for negotiating contracts supporting open-access practices.

More today from Inside Higher Ed

Who should own and control the dissemination of research? Not academic publishers, according to a new framework developed by library leaders at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The framework, published this week, asserts that control of scholarship and the way in which it is distributed should reside with scholars and their institutions. The document contains six core principles that will be used by MIT as a starting point for future contract negotiations with academic publishers.

The principles aim to ensure that research is available openly and appropriately archived. They also call for fair and transparent pricing of publisher services and say that no author should be forced to give up a copyright in order to publish their work. Instead, authors should be provided with “generous reuse rights,” the framework says.

Read more from Inside Higher Ed

Open Access Week: Aperio, UVA’s open access press

This week’s guest post comes from Dave Ghamandi, Open Publishing Librarian, and gives an update on the work he’s doing at Aperio, the open access publishing house that lives at the UVA Library. Cross-posted from The Taper

The Journal of Modern Philosophy now included in the Directory of Open Access Journals

The Journal of Modern Philosophy (JMPHIL), Aperio’s first publication, has been selected for inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ indexes high-quality, open access journals that are peer-reviewed and meet other quality standards. This is quite a milestone for JMPHIL’s editors, authors, board, and reviewers. The journal launched just last year and is co-edited by Antonia LoLordo (UVA philosophy professor) and Aaron Garrett (Boston University).

JMPHIL finds itself in good company in DOAJ, which raised its standards for inclusion in 2014. DOAJ indexes nearly 14,000 journals that make all their articles immediately and freely available on the web, with little or no restrictions on reuse. Their standards have gone a long way in demonstrating the credibility of open access journals and serving the authors of the research and scholarship that it indexes. DOAJ journals become more attractive places to publish in because of the index’s quality assurance and ability to generate wider dissemination, increased visibility, and web traffic for its articles.

JMPHIL’s success in such a short period of time is largely a reflection of the tireless work, vision, and determination of its co-editors-in-chief, Antonia and Aaron. As their publisher, Aperio is happy to share in their success and continue to provide our editors and authors with a high-level of service. We invite you to see how this journal is filling a niche in the philosophy discipline, while remaining free for both authors and readers, by visiting it at

Coming Soon: Public Domain Song Anthology

We are excited to share that our forthcoming release, the Public Domain Song Anthology, is in the final stages of production. This song anthology will feature nearly 400 songs that are in the public domain and includes modern and traditional harmonizations by David Berger and Chuck Israels.

This work will be Aperio’s first open educational resource and is a multi-institutional partnership with Johns Hopkins University and the Music Library Association. We envision this work having broad usage including being a part of music study inside and outside of the academy. It has also been created with the ability for amateur and professional musicians to use, play, share, and build upon. Our musicians’ contributions to the project will be added to the public domain as well.

This work will be available in a variety of file formats, in order to increase its accessibility and usability.

About Aperio

Aperio, a joint venture of the University of Virginia Library and the University of Virginia Press, draws upon the strengths of the University to increase open access to knowledge for a global audience in a variety of formats—journals, monographs, open educational resources, etc.

Publishing with Aperio

Please contact us if you are a UVA faculty member, staff member, or student who is interested in starting a new journal or transferring a journal for which you are an editor or board member. We will be glad to discuss your goals and how our publishing service may help you attain them.

We are also interested in hearing expressions of interest for open educational resources and other scholarly work that fits our mission.

Learn more about our services and features at

Contact us at

And follow us on Twitter @AperioUVA


Open Access Week posts will appear here, on the Library news blog, as well as on The Taper, where you can read more about issues surrounding Copyright and Information Policy.

New Exhibition “What Lies Beneath: The Macabre and Spooktacular of Special Collections”

Poster for the exhibition "What Lies Beneath," with a view of the Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library: the outside of the building above ground and the service area and the stacks below ground.

Cross-posted from Notes from Under Grounds, the blog of the Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library

Just a stone’s throw away from #13 West Range—the purported room of the University of Virginia’s masterful matriculate of the macabre, Edgar Allan Poe—the Reference Team of the Small Special Collections Library have ferreted out a frightening and ghoulish collection of items for the exhibition “What Lies Beneath: The Macabre and Spooktacular of Special Collections,” on display through December 21, 2019 in the library’s first-floor gallery.

From the library’s world-renowned subterranean treasure trove of more than 16 million objects, Special Collections staff have left no page unturned, no manuscript box unopened, to disinter the dark side of Special Collections—a pop-up of Poe’s The Raven; a miniature of his story “The Tell-Tale Heart”; a broken windowpane believed to be from his room on the Range, etched with characteristically macabre verse; a copy of Oliver Cromwell’s death mask; a leather book edged with shark teeth; a fierce hound’s face, part of the leather binding for a miniature book, The Hound of the Baskervilles: Conclusion & Retrospection.

This exhibition is designed to whet the appetite of ghoul seekers young and old. Come meet James Steele, the Revolutionary War soldier who lost his head and lived to tell about it; have a Dance with Death; perhaps sample an embalming recipe that’s simply to die for. As you explore this exhibition, we hope you will go, in the words of Edgar Allan Poe, “[d]eep into that darkness peering … wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal dared to dream before.”

Display case featuring a pop-up book about spiders opened to a page with the image of a spider popping out.

There are more than 3,000 species of spiders roaming around North America, even a few right here in the stacks, including The Spider, written by Luide Woelflein and illustrated by Tomo Narashima, from the Brenda Forman Collection of Pop-up and Moveable Books.

Display case of Poe items in the exhibition: a pop-up book of Poe's The Raven and miniature book of his story "The Tell-Tale Heart."

Edgar Allan Poe miniatures of “The Tell-Tale Heart” 2015, on loan from a private collection, and Poe, Master of Macabre, from the McGehee Miniature Book Collection, and The Raven: A Spectacular Pop-Up Presentation of Poe’s Haunting Masterpiece, from the Robert & Virginia Tunstall Trust Fund. The broken windowpane on view in the exhibition—believed to be from Poe’s Room 13 on the West Range—is etched with the following verse: O Thou timid one, let not thy / Form rest in slumber within these / Unhallowed walls, / For herein lies / The ghost of an awful crime.

Display case featuring a raccoon skin, a fierce hound's face (the biding for a book about Conan Doyle's Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles"), and a leather book edged with shark teeth."

A raccoon coat and tail, from the Marion DuPont Scott Sporting Collection, a leather book, Fantasy & Nonsense: Poems, edged with shark teeth, from the James Whitcomb Riley Collection in the Clifton Waller Barrett Library, and a miniature book bound in black calf suede and leather with colored leader onlays and shaped into the head of a hound by fine bookbinder Jarmila Sobata for The Hound of the Baskervilles: Conclusion & Retrospection, the McGehee Miniature Book Collection

Open Access Week: Making It Easy to Do the Right Thing with Open Data

Today’s OA Week Guest Post is by Sherry Lake, our scholarly repository librarian. For the last several years, Sherry has been focused on data sharing, supporting UVA researchers in managing their data and sharing it with our data repository, LibraData. For today’s post, Sherry explains how her work helps make it easy for researchers to do the right thing. Cross-posted from The Taper

Studies have shown that while most researchers appreciate the benefits of shared products of research, on an individual basis they may be reluctant to share their own work. (Van den Eynden & Bishop, 2014) Sharing the data from research, for example, is often difficult to do based on the complexity of data, current research practices, a lack of meaningful and direct incentives, costs, intellectual property, and public policy. (Borgman, 2012) As a result, making data open and freely available is not yet a routine part of researchers’ workflow or process.

Christine Borgman in her paper “The Conundrum of Sharing Research Data”, describes four reasons for sharing data: 1) To reproduce and to verify the results of past research; 2) To make products and the results of publicly funded research available to the public; 3) To enable others to ask new questions of the existing data; and 4) To advance the state of research and innovation. (Borgman, 2012)

Perhaps the strongest public policy argument for sharing research data is the ability to verify and reproduce research results. Reproducibility validates analysis and confirms the science, increasing the value of funders’ investments in research. Sharing data encourages others to use it and investigate new uses, helps to identify errors, discourages fraud, and increases the value of funding dollars by avoiding duplication of data collection. Reusing shared data thus has the potential to increase both research efficiency and quality for the benefit of all.

But what about the benefit to an individual researcher? How does the research ecosystem encourage data sharing? Most of the external incentives are mandates and threats — “sticks.” These are beginning to have an effect, but have failed to create widespread change. At the Library, we try to add a few “carrots” to the mix by making it as easy as possible for researchers who want to share to do the right thing. This year’s OA Week theme asks, “Open for whom?” The “sticks” approach says “Open for the public good, for the funder, for science generally.” In the Library, we make sure open data is also as easy as possible—for the researcher herself.


Funders, journal publishers and scholarly societies are increasingly requiring that products of research be shared openly and promptly. Many threaten negative consequences for not making products of research available, including bars on future grants or future publishing in that journal, though these consequences don’t often always come to pass.

On February 22, 2013, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a memo: To ensure that “…direct results of federally funded scientific research are made available…  Federal agencies investing in research and development (more than $100M in annual expenditures) must develop plans to support increased public access to the results of research….”

In short, this directive aims to make the results of taxpayer-funded research – both articles and data – freely available to the general public. Most federal funders require a Data Management Plan during the proposal cycle, which describes how data will be managed through the grant and what data will be shared (and specifying how sharing will be enabled) once the funding is over. The memo also specified that results of research, published in peer-reviewed publications, be publicly accessible no more than 12-months after publication.

Funding agencies are not the only groups interested in making data open and available. Journals have begun to recognize a responsibility to ensure that other researchers can replicate and build on the studies that they have published. Nature Publishing Group and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) are examples of academic publishers that have adopted data sharing polices. By encouraging access to the data that underly the papers’ results, these publishers support reuse and validation or reanalysis of the findings they publish. Both Nature and PLoS provide lists of repositories that authors can deposit and make their data available.

Scholarly societies also have an important role in leading and facilitating discussions about open access to data. Many scholarly societies are publishers in their own right and have introduced mandatory data archiving policies in connection with publications in their journals. Other societies stress the importance of sharing data through their ethics guidelines, hoping to encourage behavioral changes by proclaiming that sharing data is the right thing to do. To increase the legitimacy, credibility, and openness of intellectually diverse research communities, the American Political Science Association, in 2014, integrated “Data-Access & Research Transparency” (“DA-RT”) principles into their Ethics Guidelines. (APSA, 2016) And likewise the American Geophysical Union, in its “Scientific Integrity & Professional Ethics” guidelines, states that members have a responsibility to share data & findings openly and promptly. (AGU, 2017)


Researchers have not moved en masse toward sharing data just because it is good for science. Even sharing “requirements” have not led to widespread cultural change, yet. Researchers need the recognition that comes with a prime article placement for promotion and tenure. There are far fewer positive incentives to share data.

In the absence of strong requirements or compelling career rewards for data sharing, the main “carrots” on offer for researchers inclined to share their data are the support, training and infrastructure that make it as easy as possible to do the right thing.

The UVA Library offers all of these supports. The Research Data Services group offers workshops and help with funder data management plans. The Scholarly Communications group supports open repositories (LibraData and LibraOpen)—places to make your research open.

So come talk with us and let us help you share your data. It’s good for science, for the world, and even for the impact of your own research.

Open Access Week posts will appear here, on the Library news blog, as well as on The Taper, where you can read more about issues surrounding Copyright and Information Policy.

Statement of Virginia Research Library Deans and Directors on Endorsing the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts

Today, the MIT Libraries released a Framework for Publisher Contracts that outlines a compelling vision to guide future negotiations. The UVA Library joined with its partners in six other Virginia research libraries to issue the following statement endorsing MIT’s framework:

Virginia’s research libraries enthusiastically endorse the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts. As we work together in Virginia to forge a more sustainable, equitable approach to journal deals, the Framework is a powerful statement around which research libraries in the US and abroad can align. It describes core values our institutions share, including strong rights for our faculty authors and a fair price for the services publishers provide.

A shared vision is especially important in a time characterized by profound complexity and rapid change. Pressures favoring change are increasing by the day, and new platforms, tools, and business models are emerging to challenge the status quo. The commercial journal subscription as we know it is on an unsteady and unsustainable path. 

To stay relevant, publisher proposals need to be closely aligned with academic needs and values. The MIT Framework sends a powerful signal about what we expect to see in future contracts. We look forward to working with publishers to ensure they meet those expectations. 


Carrie Cooper, Dean of University Libraries, William and Mary

George Fowler, University Librarian, Old Dominion University

John Ulmschneider, Dean of Libraries and University Librarian,Virginia Commonwealth University

John Unsworth, Dean of Libraries and University Librarian, University of Virginia

Bethany Nowviskie, Dean of Libraries, James Madison University

Tyler Walters, Dean of University Libraries, Virginia Tech

John Zenelis, Dean of Libraries and University Librarian, George Mason University

UVA Open Access Librarian Dave Ghamandi gives views on the business of Open Monographs in article

In the article “Subscribing to Open Monographs” in a recent issue of Inside Higher Ed, UVA Open Access Librarian Dave Ghamandi gives his assessment of efforts by MIT to use a $850,000 grant from Arcadia—a charitable fund of philanthropists Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin—to create a business model for publishing open-access monographs.

MIT has expressed interest in Subscribe to Open, a program created by non-profit publisher Annual Reviews. According to Kamran Naim, director of partnerships and initiatives at Annual Reviews, the process involves the publisher contacting its institutional subscribers and offering them a 5 percent discount if they renew their subscription. “If every institution commits to renewing their subscription, the journal will be published openly. If subscriptions drop, the journals will remain behind a paywall.”

Ghamandi, however, prefers the Open Library of the Humanities publishing model, which he says is more collaborative than Subscribe to Open. “That model is a lot more appealing to me. You get to be a genuine partner. No one is holding content hostage and saying they require a certain number of subscriptions for the open-access model to kick in.”

For more about open-access publishing, read “Subscribing to Open Monographs” (Inside Higher Ed 10/22/2019)