[GOAL] Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.

[Laura Quilter]

Yes, I agree that it is good practice from the perspective of libraries,
and access, to duplicate archives and content -- but.  We are getting some
pushback from faculty who want to consolidate their archived content, so
that they can better track their metrics and stats.  I don't yet have a
pithy answer (or even a non-pithy suggestion) about how to deal with this
justified concern on the part of individual authors.  Anybody else?

Laura

----------------------------------
Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter at lquilter.net
Librarian, Geek, Attorney, Teacher


Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
lquilter at library.umass.edu




On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Hélène.Bosc <hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr>wrote:

>   I fully agree that library policies need to evolve. This was already my
> idea in 2004, when I presented my librarian's view on the necessary
> forthcoming changes in libraries, at the ESOF symposium, in Stockholm.
>
> The library's new role, new tools (for the present) for preservation, and
> the need for mandates were described in a presentation at a session called
> "Spreading the word: Who profits from scientific publications?" An ESOF
> symposium 26 August 2004, Stockholm.
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/190136.article
>
> The conference paper was wrotten jointly with Stevan Harnad. Please see:
> Bosc, Helene and Harnad, Stevan (2005). *In a paperless world a new role
> for academic libraries: Providing Open Access*. Learned Publishing 18:pp.
> 95-99. http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00120214
>
> Hélène Bosc
> Open Access to Scientific Communication
> http://open-access.infodocs.eu/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dana Roth <dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
> *To:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' <goal at eprints.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2013 7:29 PM
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to
> Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.
>
>  I agree with Stevan … especially in regards the wishful thinking about
> librarians “getting out of the business of subscribing to journals” or that
> “they're ready to go for it”
>
>
>
> Given the editorial participation and submissions to independent society
> published journals (e.g. ACS, RSC, APS, AIP, AMS, etc.), faculty members in
> these fields are very likely to change anytime soon.
>
>
>
> Biology and medicine are exceptions that are or need to be dealt with
> independently.
>
>
>
> In any event, Green OA is a very viable alterantive to what I consider the
> real ‘toll-access journals’ …namely those from commercial publishers.
>
>
>
> Dana L. Roth
> Caltech Library  1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2013 9:06 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* scholcomm at ala.org; open-access at lists.okfn.org
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest
> "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> I am so completely and utterly on your page. This is precisely the way we
> need to go and every library meeting I speak at confirms this view:
> everyone I meet there gives me the feedback that they're ready to go for it.
>
>
>
> The page is getting a bit crowded, and somewhat illegible!
>
>
>
> Of course Eric, Bernard and I agree on the advantages of distributed
> institutional repositories over central ones (for direct deposit -- central
> repositories are fine for export or harvesting).
>
>
>
> And that agreement is not ideological but practical.
>
>
>
> But as for librarians getting out of the business of subscribing to
> journals -- that's just ideology (and completely unrealistic) as long as
> authors don't into the business of self-archiving their published articles
> in their institutional repositories.
>
>
>
> And that's precisely what Green OA mandates are for.
>
>
>
> Without an effective Green OA mandate, institutional repositories are
> useless (for OA).
>
>
>
> Users need access, now, and if they can't have open access, they at least
> need as much subscription access as their institutions can afford.
>
>
>
> May I suggest that we clearly distinguish our practical points from those
> that are merely ideological desiderata and wishful thinking?
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131119/2b1784f4/attachment.html