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 / [email protected] Librarian, Geek, Attorney, Teacher Copyright and Information Policy Librarian University of Massachusetts, Amherst [email protected] On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Hélène.Bosc <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > *To:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' <[email protected]> > *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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
