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 To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 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 [email protected] http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:06 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
