Hi Jennie and group members

 

The discussions around open access have never been more widespread or so far in to the public domain, with the Elsevier boycott, the 'Academic spring', the White House petition, Wellcome Trust's mandate and the Finch report publication in the UK. 

 

The InTech report and Jennie's nice summary probably don't reveal anything startling but reaffirm what we already suspected. “The greatest concern librarians have with OA center on the article processing charges being set too high. There is generally less concern with the quality of peer review”: Librarians pay the bills and want a change to a more cost-effective model; academics want to be published in the best journals and don't give a damn about the cost (a huge generalization, I know, but certainly my overall experience after six years working in subscription publishing and then having dozens of conversations with people since launching Social Sciences Directory as an open access alternative). There is a disconnect between the motives of librarians and researchers and if librarians are going to become “more closely integrated with their research communities as a partner, educator and innovator” they need to be more concerted, more coherent and more assertive in bringing change about:

·         What are you doing to build awareness amongst your research communities?

·         Go and create the information support materials

·         Create frameworks and processes for the central management of OA funds

·         Understand how funds are managed within your institution

·         Establish what is a fair and acceptable article processing fee (Social Sciences Directory charges £100/$150/€120) and institutional membership (£2,000/$3,000/€2,400)

·         Highlight what OASPA is doing to maintain quality thresholds in open access publishing, in order to overcome the arguments that the ‘tried and tested’ <http://socialsciencesblog.co.uk/index.php/2012/06/26/tyranny-ref-intransigence-apathy-academics-embracing-publishing/>  subscription model maintains standards and open access dilutes them

 

There is a big opportunity here for somebody in the library and academic community to take the initiative and formulate policies. It could be advocates like OASPA, SPARC and OKFN. It could be library consortia or groups such as IFLA. The report has highlighted the ‘As is’ position – who will take it to the ‘To be’?

 

 

Dan Scott MA, BA (Hons)

Director

Social Sciences Directory Limited

T: +44 (0)1423 326 257

M: +44 (0)770 381 2042

 

www.socialsciencesdirectory.com 

READ IT. WRITE IT. CITE IT.

 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. 

 If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jennie Johnson
Sent: 02 July 2012 15:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Open Access survey findings throw light on the evolving role of the librarian

 

*Apologies for cross-posting*

 

Hi all,

 

Today, InTech – an Open Access (OA) publisher – has published the results of a survey appraising attitudes and awareness of the library community towards the OA business model in scholarly publishing.

 

The survey results suggest that although librarians have a good level of awareness and knowledge of OA, they believe their research communities are much less aware. Their work to educate their communities is hampered by lack of informational support materials.

 

Librarians remain broadly supportive of OA and the vast majority already feel the benefits of the model are being realized, or will be realized in the future. Despite this support, librarians in our sample were not actively involved in managing OA funds centrally, indeed, almost half were unaware of how OA charges are funded within their institution.

 

The greatest concern librarians have with OA center on the article processing charges being set too high. There is generally less concern with the quality of peer review or the potential incentive for publishers to focus on quantity over quality. Less than a quarter of librarians were concerned that OA could make their role and the services provided by the library less visible. Indeed, librarians see a strong future for the profession becoming more closely integrated with their research communities as a partner, educator and innovator.

 

For the full survey results summary, please visit:  <http://www.intechopen.com/open-access-survey-findings-throw-light-on-the-evolving-role-of-librarian.html> http://www.intechopen.com/open-access-survey-findings-throw-light-on-the-evolving-role-of-librarian.html

 

Or to download the full results of the survey, visit:  <http://www.intechopen.com/js/ckeditor/kcfinder/upload/files/Role%20of%20the%20Librarian_Survey_Findings_Jun12.pdf> http://www.intechopen.com/js/ckeditor/kcfinder/upload/files/Role%20of%20the%20Librarian_Survey_Findings_Jun12.pdf

 

For more information, please contact:

Paul MacKenzie-Cummins

 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]

 

All best wishes,

 

Jennie Johnson, TBI Communications

Tel: +44 1865 875896