The crisis in scholarly communication, part I: Understanding the issues and engaging your faculty

Technical Services Quarterly

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 125-134

  Corbett, Hillary ^a  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Copyright; Faculty; Journals; Open access; Outreach; Publishing; Scholarly communication; Tenure

Indexed keywords

FACULTY; JOURNALS; OPEN ACCESS; OUTREACH; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; TENURE;

COMMUNICATION; COPYRIGHTS;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 62549088740     PISSN: 07317131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07317130802268522     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California (2007), (University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program, August).
2. For example, Kenneth Frazier, The Librarians' Dilemma: Contemplating the Costs of the 'Big Deal' (2001). D-Lib Magazine, 7, http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier. html; Aaron S. Edlin and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Competition Policy for Journals: The Bundling of Academic Journals (2005). American Economic Review, 95, 441-446.
3. Michael Gorman. (2002). The Economic Crisis in Libraries: Causes and Effects. In Scholarly Publishing: Books, Journals, Publishers, and Libraries in the Twentieth Century, Richard E. Abel and Lyman W. Newlin (eds.). New York: Wiley, 257-271; Anna Fazackerley. (2004). Journal Costs Soar by up to 94%. Times Higher Education Supplement, no. 1662, 2; Elizabeth C. Turtle and Martin P. Courtois. (2007). Scholarly Communication: Science Librarians as Advocates for Change. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, http://www.istl.org/07-summer/ article2.html.
4. Some of these publishers, such as Springer, charge a fee to those authors who wish to have their articles made freely available through a proprietary website. However, these fees seem designed to discourage authors from taking advantage of this service (in 2005, for example, the Springer fee was $3,000). Cf. John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
5. John Willinsky, The Access Principle, 7-8.
6. Public Knowledge Project. Simon Fraser University, http://pkp.sfu.ca/
7. In January 2006, the NIH estimated that 100% compliance with the policy would require $3.5 million per year in funding. At that point, the rate of compliance was below 4%. See Peter Suber, "NIH Public-Access Policy: Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm, for more information. For details of the NIH Public Access Policy, see http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
8. Andrew Albanese. (2008). Harvard Mandates Open Access. Library Journal, 133, pp. 16-17.
9. Glenn Ellison. Is Peer Review in Peril? National Bureau for Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w13272, 7, 23.
10. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication, 4-5.
11. In this section, I use the term "librarians" as shorthand to refer to those in libraries who have been charged with developing a scholarly communication program, with the understanding that on some campuses, library support staff and faculty/staff outside the library may also be involved in such development.
12. Similar to the initial lack of government funding to support the NIH policy, if an administration fails to financially support a faculty senate resolution, it cannot expect that the resolution will gain much momentum. A mandate, not a policy or resolution, is an agent of change.
13. Evan St. Lifer. (2001). Tapping into the Zen of Marketing. Library Journal, 126, 44-46.
14. For a list of member libraries, see http://www.blc.org.
15. Scholarly Publication: MIT Libraries, http://info-libraries.mit.edu/ scholarly/.
16. Mark Caprio and Brendan Rapple. Scholarly Communication News BC, http://scho'lcommbc.blogspot.com/.