From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:43:54 +0000

Second this.  Bibliographic control and organization of collections is the
sine qua non of the library's responsibilities.

Adam

Adam Siegel
Bibliographer for Languages, Literatures, and Performing Arts
University Library
University of California, Davis
Davis  CA  95616
http://people.lib.ucdavis.edu/~apsiegel/

________________________________________

From: Nancy Herther <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 21:28:37 -0500

Joe -

Open Access is wonderful - although the standards of many OA journals are
somewhat lax today.  The real problem for researchers is that OA means
little if you can't find the articles that you need when you need them.
Google Scholar is as hopeless as Google. The shift to so many
preprint/repository/OA publications begs the need for a strong,
comprehensive indexing system - which is woefully lacking today.

I did a study<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.
2014.993061> in the field of Disability Studies a few years ago and found
that the majority of DS journals are OA and freely available on the web -
but only ONE was comprehensively indexed cover-to-cover and that was in Web
of Science.  If you can't find the articles integrated into the traditional
indexes of the scholarly fields, we are only taking a major step backwards
- not forward.

Is this a slam-dunk for the future of libraries or indexes?  No.  I'm
shocked at the number of libraries/librarians so openly talking about
canceling scholarly indexes in favor of (lord help us) Google Scholar.
Librarians and their institutions should be putting a whole lot more effort
into quality control and access; however, it doesn't seem to be happening.

Just my thoughts

Nancy Herther