Comments on: Not a Crisis, a Transition http://acrlog.org/2010/06/21/not-a-crisis-a-transition/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Barbara Fister http://acrlog.org/2010/06/21/not-a-crisis-a-transition/comment-page-1/#comment-164103 Barbara Fister Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:58:19 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=3109#comment-164103 Steve, yes - buying what users want on the spot was discussed, and I think some publishers were a little stunned that we'd let undergraduates (and other users) decide what to buy. I think it's an interesting idea, but I also recall a psychology professor trying to steer students away from The Journal of Trendy Topics that Students Like to Write Papers on and toward core psych journals. I know our sociology collection would be full of books on serial killers because students seem to love writing papers on that topic. More need to collaborate with faculty, obviously, and it would be a good thing, too. @ James - I'm not sure which part you disagree with - that libraries should become involved in scholarly publishing? That scholarly publishing shouldn't try to plan their future taking cues from trade publishers? I don't see where I said libraries shouldn't subscribe to whatever the GBS settlement kicks out or that I'm against e-books. I'm pro-open access, and think it would make a great deal of sense to fund it up front, not after the fact through library-by-library purchases, that's all. I'm certainly not pro closed stacks (???) Steve, yes – buying what users want on the spot was discussed, and I think some publishers were a little stunned that we’d let undergraduates (and other users) decide what to buy. I think it’s an interesting idea, but I also recall a psychology professor trying to steer students away from The Journal of Trendy Topics that Students Like to Write Papers on and toward core psych journals. I know our sociology collection would be full of books on serial killers because students seem to love writing papers on that topic. More need to collaborate with faculty, obviously, and it would be a good thing, too.

@ James – I’m not sure which part you disagree with – that libraries should become involved in scholarly publishing? That scholarly publishing shouldn’t try to plan their future taking cues from trade publishers? I don’t see where I said libraries shouldn’t subscribe to whatever the GBS settlement kicks out or that I’m against e-books. I’m pro-open access, and think it would make a great deal of sense to fund it up front, not after the fact through library-by-library purchases, that’s all. I’m certainly not pro closed stacks (???)

]]> By: James Weinheimer http://acrlog.org/2010/06/21/not-a-crisis-a-transition/comment-page-1/#comment-164091 James Weinheimer Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:45:48 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=3109#comment-164091 I find this difficult to agree with. When the Google Books-Publishers agreement is eventually approved (and it will be someday if not very soon), I am sure that our patrons will want it. (I for one, will want it very much!) And it will be impossible to hold out against these people because if librarians say anything like, "Subscribing to Google Books is not a good deal. I am doing this to protect YOUR best interests," nobody will believe it. The result would be merely to confirm the idea that librarians are dinosaurs from an earlier time and risk exposing ourselves to general ridicule. After all, I think people would be correct to ridicule any librarian who wanted to deny patrons access to the riches of Google books--that is, if the patrons want it. And I can't imagine any patron saying no, Scholarly communication is changing in almost every way at a frighteningly fast pace, and it is only logical to assume that it will continue in this way for a long, long time. I have welcomed many of the changes, but many others I find quite negative. I'm sure this love-hate will continue as new changes occur. But if librarians are to survive, I think we will have to represent openness and inclusion much more than closed stacks and some anachronicstic idea that we are there to ensure some level of "quality". I find this difficult to agree with. When the Google Books-Publishers agreement is eventually approved (and it will be someday if not very soon), I am sure that our patrons will want it. (I for one, will want it very much!) And it will be impossible to hold out against these people because if librarians say anything like, “Subscribing to Google Books is not a good deal. I am doing this to protect YOUR best interests,” nobody will believe it. The result would be merely to confirm the idea that librarians are dinosaurs from an earlier time and risk exposing ourselves to general ridicule.

After all, I think people would be correct to ridicule any librarian who wanted to deny patrons access to the riches of Google books–that is, if the patrons want it. And I can’t imagine any patron saying no,

Scholarly communication is changing in almost every way at a frighteningly fast pace, and it is only logical to assume that it will continue in this way for a long, long time. I have welcomed many of the changes, but many others I find quite negative. I’m sure this love-hate will continue as new changes occur. But if librarians are to survive, I think we will have to represent openness and inclusion much more than closed stacks and some anachronicstic idea that we are there to ensure some level of “quality”.

]]> By: Steve Cramer http://acrlog.org/2010/06/21/not-a-crisis-a-transition/comment-page-1/#comment-164037 Steve Cramer Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:51:22 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=3109#comment-164037 Ah but don't forget that purchasing individual ebooks is always an option, as are patron-selected ebooks (and patron-selected print books), which guarantees at least one usage. There are great discussions between publishers and librarians about such issues and opportunities at the annual Charleston Conference. Ah but don’t forget that purchasing individual ebooks is always an option, as are patron-selected ebooks (and patron-selected print books), which guarantees at least one usage. There are great discussions between publishers and librarians about such issues and opportunities at the annual Charleston Conference.

]]>