I remember some discussion about the application procedures for JISC
3/97 a few weeks ago. I submitted a proposal on behalf of a
Veterinary and Animal Health Information Consortium (provisional code
name VAHIC). I heard on Monday that it was rejected and not sent to
referees, as we'd failed to send ten copies in dead tree format, and
we'd sent it to the JISC Secretariat, instead of someone else.
I have some views about this, not surprisingly. What do other list
members think?
Is it reasonable for an Electronic Libraries project to refuse to
accept proposals electronically?
Should there be an appeal mechanism if applications are rejected on
procedural grounds?
JISC described their documentation as "clearly stating..." that
proposals should be in hard copy. My view of the circular is that it
was anything but clear. Do other list members agree?
Finally, our consortium contains non-he partners (in fact I myself am
outside the hallowed .ac.uk domain). If JISC is serious about
encouraging cross-sectoral consortia, shouldn't
some attempt be made to explain the arcane workings of bodies like
JISC, so bids are considered on their merits, and not ruled out for
bureaucratic reasons?
We will go ahead with our plans anyway, and my view is that it's
ELib's loss. But I don't think the way our application was dealt with was fair
and I worry about the way other bids will be assessed.
Tom Roper, Librarian
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Wellcome Library
Tel: (44)171 222 2021 Fax: (44)171 222 2004
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web site:http://www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvs/library.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|