τεχνοσοφια

… meanwhile, the Code4Lib Journal has published its second issue and boy is it packed with articles; Eric Lease Morgan, Coordinating Editor of the issue, does a bang-up job on the introduction (though the title has effectively Bostonroll'd me).

Each article in this issue has a little bit of something for all who call themselves a librarian or work in a library. Each identifies some sort of library problem to be addressed, and offers one or more solutions. Many are complete with code snippets. After all, this is Code4Lib.

For example, people in public service may be interested in Edward M. Corrado and Kathryn A. Frederick’s review of database-driven subject guide applications. Kenneth Furuta and Michele Potter describe a simple help system that brings librarians running to the reference desk. Margaret Mellinger and Kim Griggs explain how library resources can be organized into course pages without the need of HTML knowledge and yet sport Web 2.0 features. Nancy Fried Foster, Nora Dimmock, and Alison Bersani shed light on participatory design.

For those of us who enjoy cataloging and metadata issues, Jonathan Gorman outlines how he modified VUFind to exploit Wikipedia and cataloging authority records to enhance information about authors in a library catalog. Chris Freeland, Martin Kalfatovic, Jay Paige, and Marc Crozier illustrate a different use of Library of Congress Subject Headings by integrating place names with Google Maps. Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith and Eric Childress describe a technique for crosswalking just about any metadata format into just about any other metadata format.

For the systems librarian in you, Dan Scott and Kevin Beswick share how they used Linux live CDs customized as kiosk browsers to provide laptops as ‘quick lookup’ stations at their library. Andrew Darby takes advantage of the Google Calendar API to easily manage the display of library hours. Jody DeRidder exploits Google sitemap technology and static HTML pages to make content in the “deep Web” more accessible. We hope you find these articles useful, stimulating, and relevant to your daily working lives.

I am ashamed to admit that I have not yet finished the first issue, so I now have pages upon pages to read. Ordinarily when I am behind on my reading I wind up letting bits fall by the wayside but the material largely looks too good to ignore.

Congratulations to Editorial Committees past and present and to the community on the whole!

Dorothea left a comment on a post announcing the publication of a little conference review some colleagues and I splurted out. In the announcement I lamented a bit about impact and she wisely suggested I consider depositing the review in a subject repository such as E-LIS.

We looked into our agreement with the publisher and it was actually quite permissive. (Way to go, Emerald.) And here's the review in all its open access glory.

Thanks, Dorothea!

Broadly defined, open access makes scholarly materials accessible to users at no cost. More specifically, the term is used to describe a model of scholarly communication in which users may freely view, download, copy, and print scholarly articles, books, conference proceedings, squibs, and so forth. Such a model is in stark contrast to existing models of scholarly communication in that many of the most widely-used peer-reviewed journals are accessible to libraries primarily through expensive bulk package plans, forcing libraries to pay top-dollar for the resources their faculties require. In so doing, libraries add to their collections a number of rarely-used journals of minimal impact and value simply because they were bundled in with the journals they could not do without: a model not unlike those provided by the local cable company – i.e., if one wants the Food Network, one is also saddled with the Golf Channel.

In actuality, there are a number of different models of open access that adhere more or less to the principle of providing scholarly materials free of charge. Tenopir (2004) explains that open access:

"includes many publication and distribution schemes. E-journals that are published, distributed electronically, and subsidized by universities, government agencies, and volunteer organizations are the most common. In addition, collections of separate articles or research reports could fit the definition, including e-print servers such as arXiv.org, institutional repositories, and author web pages." (p. 33)

The numerous models of open access may typically be categorized under one of the two rubrics proposed by open access champion, Steven Harnad. In the "gold" open access model, materials are freely and immediately provided in universally accessible electronic journals. The "green" open access model might be seen as an intermediate phase between current fee-based access models and the gold model, in which authors continue to publish in journals, whether they be print-based or electronic, but deposit copies, perhaps pre-prints, into an institutional or subject repository (Crawford, 2005b).

There are thus many forms that open access publications may take, each having its own costs and benefits. What they share is the very general principle which is poignantly stated by Harnad; "the objective of open access is to maximize research impact by maximizing research access." While the benefits are many and clear, the issue of cost is one that has to be agreed upon.

Open access publishing typically implies that the user is able to freely access scholarly materials because the price of publication has been assumed by another party, usually the author of the material, the author's institution, or the grant which funded the research (Tenopir, 2004). One can see that open access publication is not, therefore, a completely cost-free endeavor. Indeed, the costs have merely been shifted from the consumers of information to the producers, or those who fund them (Wren, 2005), which applies equally to both the gold and green models of open access.

It is observed in this paper that all flavors and forms of open access impact the roles filled by academic libraries, but it is worth noting that these may vary. For instance, while the green model of open access will undoubtedly benefit scholars by globally providing scholarly material at no cost, with no access restrictions, other benefits such as budget relief may not be realized (Crawford, 2005b). In fact, it may strain budgets that are already being stretched by commercial journals.

The scope of this paper is limited to academic libraries primarily because of the close relationship they have with university faculties, i.e., those who both contribute the most to scholarly journals, and have strong needs for access to same. Many of the impacts discussed in this paper might also apply to public, school, and special libraries, but the scope is limited due to the proximity academic libraries have to the world of scholarly communication.

It is not the intention of the author to paint a simple, rosy picture of the issues surrounding open access, nor to advocate a radical, wholesale shift thereto. Rather, it is suggested only that the issues surrounding open access be brought out into the open and discussed. While there are reasons academic libraries might be cautious about modifying the ways they support scholarly communication, there are myriad reasons to consider how they might best serve their communities with open access.

… Read the paper in its entirety.