Text Block

Librariana, bibliomania, and information glut from around the Internet.
Recent Tweets @

Dempsey identifies two trends in online library presences— the centripetal trend, in which the presence is centered on the library’s website, and the centrifugal trend, in which the library attempts to embed its services to already-used online sites.

We’re familiar with products that cater to thecentripetal trend— discovery platforms, library websites with a “one-stop shop” UI, content management systems.

Less attention is paid to addressing the centrifugal trend, which I think is more important to ensuring a library’s success:

In the centrifugal trend, the network library presence is decentered, unbundled or decoupled to an evolving ecosystem of services, each with a particular focus or scope. Think for example of how aspects of user engagement have been unbundled to various social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Flickr, …), or of how parts of the discovery experience has been unbundled to Google Scholar or PubMed or to a cloud-based discovery layer, or of how some library services are atomized and delivered as mobile apps, toolbar applications, or ‘widgets’ in learning management systems and other web environments external to the library’s. The library website is now a part, albeit an important part, of this evolving network presence. In this way, the library network presence has been decentered, subject to a centrifugal trend to multiple network locations potentially closer to user workflows. [emphasis added]

[Edited because I apparently typed one thing for the other.]

liblinks:

cleispress:

This is why we <3 libraries (source)

LIBRARIES - A BARGAIN AT ANY PRICE.

(via theinnkeeperlibrarian)

thepinakes:

The “tier one" LIS journals ranked by Journal Openness Factor as developed by Micah Vandegrift and (tumblarian) Chealsye Bowley in their article “Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals.”
Eight of the ten most prestigious library and information science journals are not open access. That’s embarrassing.
From the article:

Based on this, in closing, we submit these final questions to the LIS research community: are these the journals we want on a top tier list, and what measure of openness will we define as acceptable for our prestigious journals? Further, how long will we tolerate measurements like impact factor and h-index guiding our criteria for advancement, while accounting for very little that matters to how we principle ourselves and our work? Finally, has the time come and gone for LIS to lead the shifts in scholarly communication? It is our hope that this article prompts furious and fair debate, but mostly that it produces real, substantive evolution within our profession, how we research, how we assign value to scholarship, and how we share the products of our intellectual work.

Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals | In the Library with the Lead Pipe

thepinakes:

The “tier one" LIS journals ranked by Journal Openness Factor as developed by Micah Vandegrift and (tumblarian) Chealsye Bowley in their article “Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals.”

Eight of the ten most prestigious library and information science journals are not open access. That’s embarrassing.

From the article:

Based on this, in closing, we submit these final questions to the LIS research community: are these the journals we want on a top tier list, and what measure of openness will we define as acceptable for our prestigious journals? Further, how long will we tolerate measurements like impact factor and h-index guiding our criteria for advancement, while accounting for very little that matters to how we principle ourselves and our work? Finally, has the time come and gone for LIS to lead the shifts in scholarly communication? It is our hope that this article prompts furious and fair debate, but mostly that it produces real, substantive evolution within our profession, how we research, how we assign value to scholarship, and how we share the products of our intellectual work.

Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals | In the Library with the Lead Pipe

I really enjoyed this article by Andrew Shaffer at Mental Floss— it shows how, when access is made easier, people are very, very open to the joys of reading:

Here’s a little perspective: In 1939, gas cost 10 cents a gallon at the pump. A movie ticket set you back 20 cents. John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, the year’s bestselling hardcover book, was $2.75. For a nation suffering 20 percent unemployment, books were an impossible expense.

Starting with a test run of 10 titles, which included classics as well as modern hits, [Robert] de Graff planned to unleash tote-able paperbacks on the American market. But it wasn’t just the softcover format that was revolutionary: De Graff was pricing his Pocket Books at a mere 25 cents.

[…]

Even though some European publishers were making waves with paperbacks—Penguin in England and Albatross in Germany—New York publishers didn’t think the cheap, flimsy books would translate to the American market.

They were wrong. It took just a week for Pocket Books to sell out its initial 100,000 copy run. Despite industry skepticism, paperbacks were about to transform America’s relationship with reading forever.

The article also goes into how de Graff— and later, Ian Ballantine— sold books at newspaper and magazine stands, since bookstores were few and far between.

Shaffer doesn’t go into how this effected libraries, but I can see how stacks of cheap, readily-available “classics” and popular titles were a boon to public libraries.

summerreadingwarrior:

This is pretty awesome!

And those are some truly awesome kids.

When people can’t apply for jobs or access government services because they don’t have access from home, public libraries must be there for them,” said Linda Lord, a librarian in Maine. “Where else are they going to go? Police station? Town hall? I don’t think so.

acoloneloftruth:

Kaiser, J. (2010). Free journals grow amid ongoing debate. Science329(5994), 896-898.

Kaiser points to different studies that peg the number of articles available for free at somewhere between 7 and 20%. She seems to conclude that large official mandates are most influential way to broaden OA offerings. She focuses on PLoS and NIH as strong evidence that policy changes can support OA and cites various studies that show how OA can save money for the government and universities.

Kaiser points out that PLoS ONE was set to publish 7500 papers in 2010 (about 69% of submissions) and uses a publishing model based on ensuring the scientific rigor instead of the importance of the papers submitted for publications. While ONE's financial stability helps support the OA mission of the other PLoS publications, it is hard to argue that a journal publishing that many articles and openly admitting to less rigorous peer review is making a strong contribution to science. ONE's offer to publish articles regardless of their importance to the scientific enterprise would seem to support science that is basic, replicative, or otherwise not exciting, but those articles are still considered important to scholarly communication, so I have to ask whether these articles are being published despite their lack of “flashiness” or if ONE is actually publishing unnecessary papers as Kaiser seems to suggest.

Among Kaiser’s other strong points are:

  • Science and Nature report a per-article cost of $10,000
  • Only 25% of the visits to PubMed Central were from University computers (maybe indicating that the public is accessing the work)
  • A study by Philip Davis found that after 2 years of randomly assigned open access in traditional journals, citations were not significantly affected

This last point speaks to Kaiser’s argument that high citation rates for open access content actually reflects authors’ willingness to paying OA fees for their best work.

Ultimately, Kaiser offers a realistic look at OA and shows that systemic change with broad support can cause shifts in scholarly communication but that the solutions we’ve found so far are all problematic. Should we publish mediocre work in order to fund quality OA publications? Should we strong-arm publishers into submission until traditional publishing models are no longer viable (thus putting many professional societies out of business)?

Reblogged in full because it’s something that’s been on my mind, particular what Kaiser points out.  Open access publications are still not prestigious— which may very well be what publishers want, because researchers are still shelling out for articles in paid journals, at least when they’re off the presses.

I kind of hate to say it, since I am a librarian. We pay a lot of money for discovery tools. And then I go off and just use Google Scholar.

orphalesecitylibrarian:

Link to Article in The Chronicle of Higher Education by

Nonprofit group Knowledge Unlatched pioneers an open-access model:

  • Participating libraries pick a list of scholarly books & collectively pay publishers an agreed upon fee for each book.
  • Publishers make Creative Commons-licensed, DRM-free PDFs of the selected books available for download through the OAPEN digital platform (Open Access Publishing in European Networks)
  • Pilot collection contains 28 books from 13 academic presses with publishers averaging $12,000 per book (authors ok’d access, receive royalties)
  • 300 libraries included in the pilot

Possible problems:

  • Libraries Vote on books to release: some in academic libraries concerned that “esoteric scholarship” is the least likely to win votes and therefore the most likely to remain locked up, even if it’s urgently needed”

spikedennis:

A Duel Between a Squirrel & a Monkey on a Unicorn

Source: Duel between a squirrel and a monkey, both mounted on unicorns (Yates Thompson 19, f.3, 14th c.) [links added]…

Well, this makes my life seem very irrelevant now. 

(via sexycodicology)