Feedback

I take issue with the characterization of existing institutional repositories (IRs) as “largely empty, ineffective, and hobbled by everything from questions over their mission to lagging technology to the lack of meaningful institutional engagement” (Andrew Albanese, “Institutional Repositories: Thinking Beyond the Box,” LJ 3/1/09, p. 26–28).

Albanese's research apparently failed to inform him of the burgeoning success of many IRs that have been little noticed in the blogosphere. Of the 20 most populous IRs, he notices only one (California) and misses ongoing and successful projects at Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, MIT, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Johns Hopkins, Brigham Young, Rice, Case Western, Cal Tech, UMass Amherst, Cornell, Oklahoma State, UTEP, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Rochester Institute of Technology, NYU, Florida Atlantic, and Oregon, all of which are now performing the services envisioned by Harvard's Robert Darnton.

The world outside Harvard's campus has not yet seen any concrete results from its well-publicized mandate of 14 months ago. For Albanese to confer leadership or savior-ship of the movement upon it is curious. The Harvard faculty's self-imposed open access (OA) archiving mandate was the first for U.S. institutions, but researchers seeking OA versions of Harvard research will still need to find it in the IRs of their coauthors' universities (California has 144, Nebraska 54, Penn 24, etc.)....

Those working in the field honor and appreciate the unflagging efforts of Dorothea Salo to improve the function and recognition of IRs, and we will welcome the addition of the Harvard OA archive to our ranks when it occurs. Meanwhile, we do not see ourselves as ineffectual, or failed, or in need of saving or regeneration. Clearly, some have been more active and “successful” than others, but all of the more than 150 U.S. and 700 worldwide IRs now online perform valuable services to their faculty and users who find, download, use, and cite the 3.5 million articles there.

—Paul Royster, Scholarly Communication, Love Lib., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln

We are all so superexcited to be named a five-star library (Ray Lyons & Keith Curry Lance, “America's Star Libraries,” LJ 2/15/09, p. 26–33). We are doing our best not to brag too much or misuse any lampposts. We are going to do our absolute best to get another five stars next year. In fact, our goal for 2010 is not only five stars, but we'd also like to be a “spotlight”.... Thank you for including us.

—Jennifer Baker, Dir., St. Helena P.L., CA

What you have done, in protecting the relatively well-off libraries from government retaliation by omitting resources, is penalize poorly funded libraries by suggesting that resources are irrelevant to performance (Keith Curry Lance & Ray Lyons, “The New LJ Index,” LJ 6/15/08, p. 38–41; “America's Star Libraries,” LJ 2/15/09, p. 26–33). Poorly funded institutions are as likely if not more likely to be blamed for poor performance by their local governments. If you wanted to compare the performance of two individuals, you would give them the same resources, the same amount of time to use those resources, and look at an indisputable measure of output over that time. You have consciously ruled out fairness. What does it mean to compare work accomplished over ten hours to that accomplished over five hours? What does it mean to compare the cumulative performance of ten branches to that of five, or the performance of a brand new 20,000 sq. ft. branch with an opening-day collection in an ideal location to a 5000 sq. ft. old building off the beaten path? What you have is not a meaningful comparison of performance but a justification of local privilege, like some bizarre race or class argument from the 19th century.

—David Clapp, Dir., Chattanooga–Hamilton Cty. Bicentennial Lib.

Thank you for reviewing my book, Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson (Book Review, LJ 1/09, p. 111). I'm concerned that the reviewer so badly missed the mark. While not being an apologist for or defender of Simpson trial judge Lance Ito, nowhere in the book did I indicate that he behaved unprofessionally or that he was a celebrity aspirant. Neither did I criticize him for being too deferential to the demands of Simpson's attorneys. Rather, I showed via my behind-the-scenes view how the media portrayed him as a celebrity wannabe and how the media criticized him for being deferential to not just the defense attorneys but the prosecutors as well. The book recounts the numerous sanctions, admonishments, and fines Ito imposed on both sides.

I do appreciate the reviewer mentioning the blueprint included in the book, which can help prevent such spectacles in future high-profile trials and result in the media and the courts working more cooperatively to serve the public better....

—Jerrianne Hayslett, www.anatomyofatrial.com, South Milwaukee