Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries book. Happy reading Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries Pocket Guide.

This suggests that Katsirikou's collection will be of interest to academic librarians looking for new ideas in providing open access to scientific information. The articles span a range of topics including case studies, position papers, and semi-quantitative research.

The best of these articles provide unique perspectives on the implementation of OA principles in libraries or discuss the interface between open access and other library services like marketing and public services. The authors of many of these papers come to the material from institutions outside of the United States and Western Europe and provide a window into cultural issues related to dealing with open access content.

For instance, the collection includes articles discussing social impacts of open access to cultural heritage information in Indonesia and infrastructure issues in developing OA repositories in other countries. These topics are important to our overall understanding of the implications of open access policies and planning in environments that are not typically discussed in the literature.

Leaving aside problems with presentation of figures and typesetting, it does not flow smoothly from paper to paper or section to section. Content is often off topic and where discussions are on topic, the treatment is often superficial, rarely delving into the labyrinth of issues that necessarily surround open access. The text also lacks suitable bookends to hold the content together by leading the reader into the collection and then drawing the collection to a close.

This is not been my experience or that of any colleagues of mine.

STM Future Trends 2020 provides publishers insights on the currents affecting them

While there are other publishers that are very sound in terms of both peer review and cutting edge scholarship, there is no publishing stream that has earned the trust for both innovative and rigorous, unbiased scholarship as the university presses. They also do an excellent job of reflecting their regional cultures with titles that are critical to the documentation and presentation of cultural diversity that would otherwise be lost if not for their publishing efforts. We would do well to study our colleagues for guidance rather than underestimating them. Give us a break, Joe.

Why risk ruining it it with a backhanded slap in the face to a subset of the scholarly publishing community that has consistently been innovative, inventive, and open to seeking new business and technology models? I feel as though you owe us an apology, or—if you truly believe this—a full SK piece supporting your argument.

Writing as someone from an pound gorilla in another sector full disclosure: Gale , the dismantling of the Big Deal could serve publishers outside the STEM universe quite well.

The rise of the library services platform (LSP)

True, administrators might just take saved money away from the library system. But then again, they may let the library re-deploy those funds more cost effectively among STEM alternatives or among non-STEM publishers in the humanities and social science who suffer silently as they stand further back in the funding queue behind Big Deal providers.

Note, this is not just myself writing as the employee of a potential corporate beneficiary from the dismantling of Big Deals. Our sales teams as do those at our competitors, large and small, in the database and print publishing universe hear this complaint from humanities and social science librarians on a pretty regular basis. There are so many problems, mistaken assumptions, and false and slanderous claims especially regarding librarians in this post that I almost do not know where to begin.

I am also a scholar who used to be a tenured professor in English. I feel compelled to leave some comments here primarily on behalf of scholarly communication librarians, especially since this post, at its worst, defames them, and at its least insulting, simply misrepresents what is happening on the inside of university libraries vis-a-vis corporate-conglomerate publishing and open access. Is that what you mean? If so, it is patently false. Commercial-conglomerate publishers and really, all publishers: independent, university-based, commercial-conglomerate, etc. Librarians are among the most ethical actors within the landscape of higher education I have ever met.

They are responsible stewards of the knowledge economy and they have a specific mission with regard to the open sharing and dissemination of knowledge, which brings me to …. Esposito implies while also admitting he has NO idea that librarians are seeking out unsavory associates from the shadowy world of pirate libraries.

Produce one ounce of proof for that ludicrous statement. They may be critical of certain copyright laws, but until they change, they do due diligence to uphold them and to encourage faculty and students to do the same. And they do this transparently and openly except when publishers try to muzzle them, as they often do, with non-disclosure agreements: sound familiar?

View Open Access To Stm Information Trends Models And Strategies For Libraries 2011

Esposito grew up in New Jersey so he knows some things about what happens when someone a librarian? Also, get smarter. If you wonder who enables SciHub, look at who benefits. This is the first principle of the armchair detective. SciHub benefits the scholars who produced the work. As publishing conglomerates get larger, they offer more demeaning publishing terms to authors, more libraries cancel subscriptions, and articles tend to be poorly described and indexed and lost among book reviews and other publication types in the discovery layer.

Large publishers are killing the golden goose by ignoring and abusing the creators of the content they devour. To be fair, we recently added librarian Lisa Hinchliffe and are hoping to add more. Interestingly, in our recent survey, one common complaint was the lack of any bloggers from commercial publishing houses all our resident publishers are with not-for-profits.

I neglected to realize that PLOS was a non-profit. Same goes for Rick Anderson. They made a lot of comments here, but none of them took Esposito to task for his defamatory and misleading statements about librarians vis-a-vis SciHub etc. It would just bring in an important but often marginalised by this group set of perspectives.

Part of the problem, in my mind, with what is going on with the larger commercial-conglomerate publishers is that they want to gobble up all of the real estate and the quality of what they provide actually gets worse, not better, with every merger and takeover. Different people interact with blog comment sections in different ways. Many of our bloggers avoid the comments sections altogether the idea being that they have expressed themselves with the post and said what they need to say.

I strongly agree with you about the concerns around consolidation, basically the big commercial publishers continuing to get bigger at the expense of the smaller, the independent, the not-for-profit and the new startups. But, the more the better! Thanks to the digital humanities and the burgeoning academic field of scholarly communications, we are witnessing a growing cadre of researcher-publishers who are just as busy innovating scholarly publishing as the employees at publishers like Elsevier and the quality of many of these projects is sky-high not to mention all of the for-profit start-ups that are also emerging to help librarians and scholars to reinvent scholarly publishing.

I could name so many more platforms like this, but maybe take the time to read a prospectus of all of the things Mellon has been funding over the past five or so years and maybe adjust your perspective of what scholars and librarians and technical developers working together can accomplish. They are creating for themselves what bigger publishers have failed to produce on their own, or even on behalf of the public scholarly commons. A lot of the technical stuff the bigger publishers have developed and foisted upon their scholar-authors-editors has been absolute crap even just navigating some of their poorly designed websites is a nightmare in itself.


  • JIMD Reports, Volume 26!
  • How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students!
  • Making It Easy: Cajun Cooking (Making It Easy)!
  • The Language of Literature (Routledge a Level English Guides).

Can you blame librarians for fighting back? They are, in fact, doing just that, hand in hand with researchers and technical experts. Again, no one, least of all librarians, is depending on SciHub to do anything for them. Because Esposito relies so heavily in this post on the the clearly absurd idea that librarians are somehow either working with, or depending on, SciHub, the whole piece just starts to feel more and more ludicrous.

If anything, libraries are reclaiming their place as the heart and soul of any university, in large measure due to all of the ways in which they are acting to address issues relative to the growth of the Digital Everything and the changing landscape s of scholarly communication.

In fact, it is precisely because access is at the heart of their mission that they are doing what they are doing. Again, I recommend a visit to one of many conferences around the world where librarians, publishers for- and non-profit, university-based and otherwise , scholarly communication experts, and technologists are working together for a better future for scholarly publishing. It was a veritable hive of scholarly production and innovative librarianship , and as Lisa points out, the value that faculty researchers ascribe to libraries today is on the rise, partly because of all of the ways in which libraries are re-inventing themselves in the face of the rapidly changing landscape of scholarly communication.

Ultimately, what I really want to say here is that everyone really needs to spend more time inside of research libraries and at conferences, such as the Library Publishing Forum, to understand that the future of scholarly communications may, in fact, be library-based, and yes, contrary to some of the opinions being expressed here, they increasingly have the capability to do this well and are innovating in this direction all of the time, especially with scholar- and technologist-collaborators. I would like to see a more robust set of functional relationships between the primary stakeholders in OA publishing, for example, throughout the scholarly communication process, from submission to preservation.

Joe is an exceptional writer and analyst. When he is so inclined he is also a brilliant provocateur. This piece is a master class in provocation, and you can see the rhetorical skill on display in these two sentences:. There are at least three fallacies bundled up here in these 29 words. First is the Trumpian fallacy that deals are won rather than made. If the publishers refuse to counter the Swedes, then the circumstance is best described as a stalemate, not a win for either side.

Second, Joe presents no evidence that the Swedes or any librarians anywhere are motivated in their negotiations by the presence of Sci-Hub. He acknowledges that they are likely not so motivated in an earlier paragraph, but then bridges the admission with a non sequitur of a comparison between mobsters and librarians, and then just plows on. Third , he embraces the fallacy of the excluded middle, where one option is taken arbitrarily as defining even though there are many, many other options.

Perhaps it is worth exploring what would happen if a stalemate persists in the negotiations in Sweden. If it does, why are libraries singled out as the only culprits? A deal takes at least two parties. In fact, both libraries and publishers would be leaving their constituencies with no library access, but even then use of unauthorized sites is not the only choice that these abandoned constituents would have. They could subscribe individually or pay for individual articles and, in that case, they would share the plight of independent scholars elsewhere for whom most publishers have made little effort to offer affordable options.

But even a stalemate with its multiple paths forward is not the only or even most likely outcome.

follow url

Open Access to STM Information - Anthi Katsirikou - Bok () | Bokus

A number of libraries have always refused the so-called big deals that publishers have proposed and which are being negotiated in Sweden at a national levels. These libraries have not relied on the black market, but have instead worked out other more modest and carefully negotiated arrangements with publishers for works that their scholars need, and that the institutions can afford.

I appreciate D. How is that critically productive? And this brings me to something that has really been bothering me a lot lately, sparked by a conversation on Twitter with a well-known advocate for open science and whom I admire for their work on behalf of open science who intervened into a thread where I was asking that we reconsider how we define Open Access for me, that would be understanding that Open Access has to mean open in 2 directions: open to read, without economic barriers, but also open to publish, without economic barriers , in order to inform me that all discussion over how to define Open Access and its many varieties: Gold, Green, etc.

And with very few exceptions, those dominating are primarily white and male and based in what I would call Anglo-European-American communities of academics researchers, publishers, service providers, standards agencies, and policy makers. And while I also know that leaders of this particular community SSP have thought in the past about the lack of diversity and have attempted to address that in partial ways, you really have not succeeded on this score.

While SK may have solicited library folk and different sorts of publisher folk and different sorts of information agency folk, the same voices dominate again and again and again. I agree with Eileen and other critics of the original post. The original post was inaccurate and misleading.

I also agree with her more generally about SK. I am of course part of that elite. It would be useful to hear from them.

Citations per year

Did I imagine that? I like a provocative post, and the comments even more. But, the publishers do always seem to come off best in the SK…. Tweet Share Pin 1. Buffer 1.

admin