Re: Librarians and OA advocacy

From: bq <>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:21:34 -0700

    [ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

if you want some well documented evidence of librarians' interest in oa, you might look at the latest issue of library journal. an article entitled "serial wars" gets into it Though library journal is published by a division of reed-elsevier, this article called the shots. to quote:

Open access is no longer a subtext in the annals of the journals industry. It stands alone as an alternative to the existing system of journal publication, which most say is unsustainable in its current form. It can mean different things to different proponentsÔ^└^ďa shared path to many ends. Libraries want relief from journal prices that are patently outrageous and defy cost-benefit justification. Authors want impact, and OA articles get cited much more often. Scientists want faster and easier access to othersÔ^└^┘ research, but a recent paper, Ô^└^▄UK Scholarly Journals: 2006 Baseline Report,Ô^└^Ţ found that half of all researchers in Britain have problems securing access to needed articles. Universities want a better return on their investment in intellectual capital, authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Taxpayers want to be able to read the research they sponsor.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
>Sent: Apr 23, 2007 11:07 AM
>Subject: Re: Librarians and OA advocacy
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, wrote:
>> I agree with Fred. I'm not sure where this notion that librarians are
>> anti green OA has come from. I've not seen any publication by a
>> librarian to that effect, and it certainly doesn't correspond to views
>> informally expressed to me by librarians.
>It was I who encouraged Andrew to post his recommendation (with which I
>agree completely) to the Forum. I think if it is read carefully, it will
>be seen that he said *some* librarians do not yet understand and support
>Green OA (and I think he could just as accurately even have said "many")
>and its implications for the new role of the library in the OA era.
>Fred and Charles are right too, that some librarians *do* understand
>and support Green OA and its implications, and indeed have been among
>the leaders of the OA movement.
>In 2007 it is undeniable (and has already been so for a number of years)
>that OA, optimal and inevitable though it is -- and has been from the
>onset of the online age -- is now extremely late in coming. It is hence
>already an irreversible historic fact that the optimal and inevitable
>outcome will have arrived considerably later than it could and should
>have arrived.
>Some librarians did their best to hasten it; some administrators too.
>Others of them did much less than they could have done.
>Some publishers did their best to try to stop or at least embargo OA,
>and that will not redound to their historic credit either. Some Gold OA
>publishers tried to advance Gold OA in particular, but not OA in general
>(i.e., Green OA). That too will diminish their historic contribution.
>But there is no question at all that the ones who are primarily to blame
>for this needless embargo on the optimal and inevitable outcome *for them*
>are -- and have been all along -- the researchers themselves.
>(But Charles, if you really want to see evidence that there do exist
>librarians in the indifferent to the anti-Green portion of the spectrum
>too, read the liblicense list.)
>Stevan Harnad

barbara quint
editor, searcher magazine
932 11th st., suite 9
santa monica, ca 90403
Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 22:36:02 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:52 GMT