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.