The controversy concerning the future of libraries has been in the New York Times and most recently, the latest edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education in the article: Young Librarians, Talkin' 'Bout Their Generation . The view of the "next generation" of library professionals is fascinating. What concerns them most? One area of concern, one area I think is a fundamental issue for the profession (and will continue to be) is intellectual property, ownership and the scholarly record. The librarians interviewed indicated that librarians need to take more control, assert their authority, take back their power, and change their perspective on what they can and cannot demand from publishers who depend, at least in part, on libraries as their customers (as one interviewee accurately pointed out). Further, they see a future heavily invested in digital, which makes sense. I was surprised, however, that they were not so adamant about the end of analog, but, they did see the integration of multiple technologies (hopefully in a coherent whole) that will shape their futures. It was also very reassuring for someone like myself, who is no longer in her thirties (!) to have such an articulate, engaged, and tech-savvy group of individuals taking the reins (so to speak) as the field evolves and looks to its future.
The issue affecting these young librarians are apropos of the issues currently facing the library community, especially in academe. The continuing controversy concerning the decision of the publishers of Science to withdraw it from JSTOR is heating up, and for good reason. When JSTOR came into being, and librarians began to provide it to their clientele, they did so with the expectation that the journals included would be there for the foreseeable future. It was not a situation where there wasn't a quid pro quo, librarians paid for the access to this publication and the price was certainly fair for all the publishers involved. Further, as one of the librarians involved with purchasing at the time, I know that that purchasing resources such as JSTOR affected myriad collection development decisions that are difficult, or impossible, to reverse because of Science's decision to pull out.
The Chair of the Council of Library Directors for the University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions (USMAI), Dr Celia Rabinowitz, stated in the recent Chronicle article that this is a significant loss, and further, it might result in a growing reliance on print to offset the ever growing need of publishers to extract more for their publications. While I certainly support the publishers right to make a profit, I balk at the loss of a scientific publication from an aggregated database resulting in its loss to the learner, scholar, and next generation. Once lost, there is no more opportunity to serendipitously find Science when searching through databases for materials. That is indeed a serious loss for learners, researchers, and the libraries who serve them. I also found it profoundly disturbing that Science felt it needed to pull out even when it does not index its journal into JSTOR for five years. Clearly, there is little or no loss of revenue at the end of a five year period for a publication that is about scientific discovery. Couldn't they consider lengthening the time before they contribute to JSTOR as an alternative to simply pulling out entirely?
In an emerging world that is ever more focused on cross-disciplinary research, being "an island" in the field, ie, not participating in an aggregated database that combines resources for a myriad of fields like JSTOR, is counter intuitive to the choices and preferences of science researchers. The only bright spot in all of this is that few publications would be interested in being isolated, Science is one of the few that would consider this to be in their interest.
In an era where musicians, some of the finest (e.g., Radiohead), are choosing to allow the consumer to pay what s/he thinks is fair for their latest album, I think the idea of paying more for the same information, such as the Science model doesn't have a bright future. We will see what happens with Science and whether they reconsider their approach. We will also see if they consider their debt to the scholars, librarians, and future scholars who make their journal possible and are the primary users as well.
In a word, librarians, unite! We've got the power! Apply pressure and let's see if we can be as successful as Radiohead! :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very much enjoyed reading your post (especially after just reading the NextGen piece).
As the Director of Library Relations at JSTOR, I'd like to offer one comment and one clarification. My comment is that librarians *do* have real power, and when effectively applied, can do magical things. It is precisely that power that has allowed initiatives like JSTOR to effectively pursue their long-term missions.
My clarification has to do specifically with the the AAAS decision to leave JSTOR at the end of this year. I think it is important to underscore that the content from Science *will remain* in JSTOR for the years 1880-2002 for those institutions that are current participants in JSTOR's Health & General Sciences Collection. No content will be removed. However, no new content (after 2002 issues) will be added to the archive.
This is an incredibly important point for libraries, especially those who have come to depend upon JSTOR for the *long-term preservation* of that content.
I hope the clarification is helpful.
Hi, Bruce, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I knew they were not withdrawing, however, that new customers would not have the backfiles nor access to the journal on a continuing basis. I appreciate that AAAS isn't entirely withdrawing the journal's backfiles. I would have preferred a more equitable outcome that didn't mean removal entirely of Science. Thanks for your views!
Dr K
Post a Comment