I respectfully disagree with J Beall. Libraries have always made decisions about purchases based on costs and other factors. Furthermore, they have the absolute right to (and probably should) make decisions that help to leverage change in the direction towards a more sustainable system.
On a related note, see the statement below in support of the Lingua Editors released yesterday by Association of Research Libraries, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) <http://aascu.org/>, the American Council on Education (ACE) <http://www.acenet.edu/Pages/default.aspx>, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) <http://www.carl-abrc.ca/en.html>, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) <https://www.coar-repositories.org/>, EDUCAUSE <http://www.educause.edu/about/mission-and-organization>, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) <http://www.sparc.arl.org/>. Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> - +1 514 992 9068 Skype: kathleen.shearer2 - twitter: @KathleeShearer ----------- Higher Education Groups Support Lingua Editors, Open Access Following in the footsteps of other editors and authors <http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Journal_declarations_of_independence>, the six editors and thirty-one editorial board members of the Elsevier journal Lingua resigned on October 27, 2015, in protest of Elsevier’s practices. The Lingua editors argued that the journal’s price has steadily increased year after year, far outpacing the cost of production. The editors also cited Elsevier’s refusal to transition the journal to a “fair open access <http://www.lingoa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151012Linguists-to-publish-journal-articles-in-fair-open-access-def-1.pdf>” model that would charge low and transparent article processing fees for authors, while allowing authors to retain copyright to their articles. Despite the clear benefits for Lingua authors and the broader community, Elsevier will not consider the adoption of a fair open access model for this journal. Furthermore, the Lingua journal imposes a 36-month embargo for article sharing via repositories and other mechanisms, in contrast to US and other funders around the world that, for the most part, require articles to be made available within 12 months of publication <http://roarmap.eprints.org/>. As a result, the editors decided to leave Lingua and announced a plan to launch an open access journal, Glossa, to be published by the nonprofit Open Library of Humanities. According to Wired <http://www.wired.com/2015/11/editors-of-the-journal-lingua-protest-quit-in-battle-for-open-access/>, Glossa will be able to support its journal for about $400 per article, while Elsevier charges Lingua authors about $1,800 for their articles to be freely available. By transitioning to a fair open access model, the Lingua editors will establish a journal that diverts far fewer of researchers’ limited resources from conducting research. The actions of the Lingua editors reflect the underlying values of scholarship that knowledge should be shared as widely as possible for the benefit of research and society. Joining us in supporting the actions of the Lingua editors and editorial board are: the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) <http://aascu.org/>, the American Council on Education (ACE) <http://www.acenet.edu/Pages/default.aspx>, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) <http://www.carl-abrc.ca/en.html>, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) <https://www.coar-repositories.org/>, EDUCAUSE <http://www.educause.edu/about/mission-and-organization>, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) <http://www.sparc.arl.org/>. As organizations committed to the principle that access to information advances discovery, accelerates innovation, and improves education, we share the significant concerns raised by the Lingua editors and we support sustainable open access models. Furthermore, research is becoming increasingly international and we must develop a system that fosters global participation, regardless of geographical location or size of institution. To that end, we strongly support the Lingua editors’ decision to pursue an alternative solution, which will better serve the needs and values of higher education and the public that sustains it. The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) noted in a statement on this issue <http://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/News/aplu-statement-on-resignation-of-linguas-editors--editorial-board-members-in-protest-of-elseviers-pricing-policies> last week that the current system of scholarly publishing is “fundamentally broken.” This system, in which large international publishers seek to generate huge profits by charging to access or publish articles, many of which result from publicly funded research or scholarship, is neither fair nor financially sustainable. We firmly believe that the higher education and research communities need to collectively advance alternative models of scholarly publishing that are fair, sustainable, and transparent. To promote wide-reaching and sustainable publication of research and scholarship, our communities have already begun to mobilize efforts to develop collaborative infrastructure and new financial models for scholarly publishing. These efforts will ensure that the publications produced retain and enhance rigor and quality, embed a culture of rights sympathetic to the scholarly enterprise, and are economically sustainable for the higher education and research communities and the public that supports us. We invite and encourage others to work with us in these efforts. > On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Beall, Jeffrey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think that Guedon's advice to "Remove access to Lingua going forward" is > the moral equivalent of a book banning. > > There's no moral difference between saying "Remove access to Lingua" and > saying "Remove the book Heather Has Two Mommies." > > I understand that all book banners (and journal banners) think they are doing > the right thing and helping society. > > I think it is shameful for anyone, especially a librarian, to call for the > removal of content from a library. > > Guedon is the modern-day equivalent of a book banner. He is pressuring > libraries to ban serials, the same, morally, as banning books. > > Jeffrey Beall > University of Colorado Denver > <> > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf > Of Richard Poynder > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:59 PM > To: 'Global Open Access List' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board > members of Lingua resign over Elsevier > > I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon: > > > The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous move > that must be supported by the libraries. > > With regard to the Lingua (now Glossa) editorial board, libraries could, for > example, > > 1. Remove access to Lingua going forward (keep access to archive up to > December 31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove Lingua from > subscriptions, starting in 2016, if not in a Big Deal > > 2. Support Glossa (the new journal) financially, > > 3. Promote Glossa widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal at the > level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal is > linked to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher. > > Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's Lingua from > now on. > > This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific > societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as > we foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published > (i.e. a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card. > > Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the multinational, > commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are not the friends of > the scientific communication system we need. > > >> > > Extract from Inside Higher Ed article: > > “All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top > journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's policies on > pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication > that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors' > noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to > be called Glossa.” > > The article can be read in full here: > > https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees > > <https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees> > > For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here: > http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/ > <http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
