The widespread deployment of repository systems in higher education and research institutions provides the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication. However, repository platforms are still using technologies and protocols designed almost twenty years ago, before the boom of the Web and the dominance of Google, social networking, semantic web and ubiquitous mobile devices.In April 2016, COAR launched the Next Generation Repositories Working Group to identify the core functionalities for the next generation of repositories, as well as the architectures and technologies required to implement them. This report presents the results of work by this group over the last 1.5 years. The Next Generation Repositories Working Group has explicitly focused on the generic technologies required by all repositories to support the adoption of common behaviors. This report describes 11 new behaviors, as well as the technologies, standards and protocols that will facilitate the development of new services on top of the collective network, including social networking, peer review, notifications, and usage assessment. 1. Exposing Identifiers 2. Declaring Licenses at a Resource Level 3. Discovery through Navigation 4. Interacting with Resources (Annotation, Commentary and Review) 5. Resource Transfer 6. Batch Discovery 7. Collecting and Exposing Activities 8. Identification …

The phrase “scholarly communication” appears often in the description of library roles and responsibilities, but the function is still new enough that it takes different forms in different institutions. There is no common understanding of where it fits into the library’s organizational structure. This landscape review of offices of scholarly communication grows out of research originally conducted by Ithaka S+R for the Harvard Library. The project was designed to undertake a review of how academic institutions support the scholarly communication function in their libraries and to gather basic information about the issues at some of the largest research intensive university libraries. It finds categorical differences in the vision for the scholarly communications unit and its organizational placement, as well as associated differences in staffing and budget.