From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:24:56 -0700

The policies of a large publisher are one piece of an extraordinarily
tangled web of professional and commercial relations.  Academics
supply them with their content, then consume it, aggregated and
edited, in return.  Libraries enter the picture mainly as
intermediaries on the consumption side.  The question who speaks to
and for whom is itself complicated.  As librarians, we speak for our
users *qua* users, but groups of faculty and individual faculty
members will have their own views and relationships with many
different publishers.  Academics, as a matter of cold fact, do
strenuously and continuously support all the major commercial
publishers in remarkable numbers, by writing, reviewing, and editing
for them.  We shouldn't get up on too high a horse about these things.
If I, as librarian, do that, then I, as academic, will likely try to
knock me off.

It's very much our business as librarians to cut the best deal we can
get -- and historically I'd say we do that quite well.  Expostulating
publicly about our dismay with aspects of the deal we cut is part of
what we do in order to get a better deal next time.  But of course
we're much more conservative about cutting out deals entirely than the
tone of our expostulation might lead an objective observer to expect.
For the record, I also expostulate about United Airlines a lot, and
have done so all the way to acquiring a few months ago two million
mile status with them.  There must be something about the deal with
them that's working for me.

Jim O'Donnell
Professor, School of Historical Philosophical and Religious Studies
University Librarian
Arizona State University

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 22:52:41 -0400

I would observe that many publishers are also academics "in spirit and
status."  Certainly university press members have university
affiliations if that's what you mean.  But it is also true that there
are people at commercial publishers who both hold advanced degrees and
publish original research.  I don't understand what "spirit and
status" means in your statement, but if by that you mean advanced
degree status and a desire to advance knowledge, then I think a
researcher at Elsevier is at minimum just as much an academic as an
independent scholar or one working for, say, a museum or, in the US, a
government agency (think historians at NASA or at state historical
societies for example).  Many scholars housed on campuses are also
doing commercial work via their patents or agreements with drug
companies or the like; surely a scholar housed at a commercial press
doing research and publishing is just as much a scholar in "spirit and
status" even if other aspects of their work earn money?

I guess I also don't see how, if librarians are research partners,
publishers, who often work with authors at minimum on revisions and,
in the HSS world, sometimes from a project's origins, are not.  Unless
by research you really mean only the looking up or creation of data
and not creating a framework in which to present it and helping to do
so in the clearest possible language.

Honestly,Jean-Claude, claiming special wisdom for librarians about
what Elsevier et al are "up to" denigrates researchers/scholars.
Perhaps they know and find that other factors outweigh for them the
fact that Elsevier operates for profit.  I'm not claiming that's the
case; my real point is that claiming superior wisdom for librarians
feels uncomfortably like government bureaucrats claiming they know
best what's right for citizens.  Maybe the scholars, rather than being
ignorant, just make their choices for their own reasons.

In the words of the late twentieth century citizen philosopher Rodney
King, can't we all just get along here?

Alex Holzman

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:32 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:00:53 +0000
>
> Library associations are certainly a lot closer to academics than Elsevier...
>
> I do not think that Kathleen Shearer claims that libraries represent
> scholars; she simply notes that parts of academe are reacting to
> Elsevier.  Libraries are part of academe. They also appen to
> understand, unlike a majority of researchers, what Elsevier and the
> other big international publishers are up to.
>
> As for organisations that would represent academics, two points need to be made:
>
> 1. Many librarians are academics, both in spirit and status;
>
> 2. If learned societies and scientific associations are implied in
> this putative set of "truly representative" organisations, then we
> should ask two questions:
>
> a. Which associations have given or sold their journal(s) to Elsevier
> or another international publisher?
>
> b. Which associations are waiting in the wings and observing, just to
> see whether they should follow suit?
>
> Researchers should stop treating librarians as mere service (and,
> therefore, inferior): librarians are research partners, not servants.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:19:09 +0100
>
> I repeat my previous comment. I can see a few universities signing. I
> can see NO organisation representing academics in any discipline. Does
> Kathleen Shearer really think that library organisations represent
> scholars? I am not writing in defence of Elsevier. I am just pointing
> out that libraries should really stop claiming that they represent the
> scholarly community.
>
> Anthony
>
> ----Original message----
> From: Kathleen Shearer <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:54:36 -0400
>
> (sorry for the cross-posting)
>
> In the last two weeks, over 1,600 individuals and organizations from
> 52 countries around the world have signed a statement opposing
> Elsevier’s new article sharing and hosting policy, underscoring that
> many in the scholarly community do not support the new policy.
>
> The policy imposes unacceptably long embargo periods for making
> articles available, the vast majority of which range from 12 months to
> 4 years after publication. It also requires researchers to apply
> licenses that restrict the full re-use of articles.
>
> Research funders from around the world are adopting policies that
> ensure fast access, use and impact of research outputs. Most of these
> funders' require open access to articles within 12 months of
> publication or less. Elsevier's policy is in direct opposition to the
> trend towards encouraging greater access to and impact of research
> results.
>
> Since the statement was published on May 20, 2015, public support has
> continued to grow, demonstrating the deep, global support for open
> access to research outputs.
>
> COAR and SPARC renew our call for Elsevier to revise their policy in
> order to better align it with the interests of the research community
> and broader society.