<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Stevan,<br><br>Please don't forget that librarians are often also researchers
and authors in their own right. And Emerald publishes many titles in the
field of Library and Information Science/Studies (LIS). So Emerald, in addressing librarians, is in fact addressing the researchers/authors that are submitting to their publications.<br><br>I suspect the Emerald
communication might have been in response to Heather's message to the scholcomm list from
several days ago that I copied and pasted below.<br></div>-DeDe<br></div>University of Saskatchewan <br></div>University Library<br><div><div><br><i>Heather Morrison's email:<br><br>LIS publisher Emerald has introduced a 24-month embargo on authors whose
institutions have open access mandates, according to Richard Poynder on
Open and Shut:<br>
<a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html</a><br>
<br>
This is a significant backtrack from what was a really good open access archiving policy.<br>
<br>
As of today, there are 146 titles listed under Library and Information
Studies in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and most say
Publication Fee - No:<br>
<a href="http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpId=129&uiLanguage=en" target="_blank">http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpId=129&uiLanguage=en</a><br>
<br>
Librarians, Emerald current and potential editors, authors, and
reviewers, perhaps it is time to ditch this "it's about the profit"
publisher in favour of journals that prioritize sharing of our
knowledge? If none of the current DOAJ titles fit your scholarly niche -
why not start your own?<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
Heather G. Morrison<br>
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics<br>
<a href="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com</a></i></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Wagner, A. Ben <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:abwagner@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">abwagner@buffalo.edu</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have not followed the Emerald issue since it is not a publisher I deal with as a librarian or a scholar, so I will not comment directly on that issue. However, at least from a U.S. perspective and speaking much more generally, I'm not sure complaints from U.S. academics about businesses being business-focused will carry much weight. From where I sit, academia is getting more and more like big business every day with enterprise/start up zones, ROI on research, running leaner and meaner, pursue of grants and industry partnerships while teaching sometimes suffer (though that is always denied), looking for every opportunity to license/commercialize research, and I could go on. This isn't necessarily all bad. Just pointing out that academia, again at least in the U.S., is a business as much as any corporation, imho. So I ask the question. In academia, is business trumping scholarship? So which is the pot and which is the kettle?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, publishing is a business.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, universities are (alas) becoming more and more like businesses.</div><div><br></div><div>But research is research.</div><div><br>
</div><div>And researchers are researchers.</div><div><br></div><div>And research is funded by tax-payers.</div><div><br></div><div>And the uptake, usage, applications, productivity and progress of scientific and scholarly research are obstructed by access barriers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So let's not obscure the real contingencies by saying "it's all just business."</div><div><br></div><div>What's not evident to me is why Emerald is addressing its attempt at self-justification to libraries, when it is their authors' research that is at issue:</div>
<div><br></div><div>Libraries are the clients for Emerald's product.</div><div><br></div><div>But authors are Emerald's suppliers. And they supply free of charge. And so do the peers who do the peer review for Emerald journals. </div>
<div><br></div><div>So please, Emerald, address researchers and tax-payers, not your business clientele: Librarians have absolutely nothing to do with Emerald policy on author self-archiving.</div><div><br></div><div> Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Views expressed herein are my personal reviews and not reflective of my institution, administration, management, or faculties.<br>
<br>
--A. Ben Wagner, Sciences Librarian<br>
University at Buffalo<br>
<a href="mailto:abwagner@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">abwagner@buffalo.edu</a><br>
<br><br></blockquote></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>