|
 | European Union Issues Report on Scientific Information in Digital Age
The Council of the European Union (EU) last week released its "conclusions on scientific information in the digital age", a brief, although broad, seven-page document that acknowledges current developments, positive and negative in the provision of scientific information, but offers no concrete framework to address the issues it raised. The report urged further "experimentation," and "a constructive debate" among EU member stakeholders, recognizing "the importance of effective collaboration between different actors, including funding agencies, researchers, research institutions and scientific publishers, in relation to access, dissemination and preservation of scientific publications and research data."
The EU Council's report is the latest of a number of government examinations in Europe of the scientific information landscape. Others include the European Research Advisory Board's (ERAB) 2006 report on scientific publication and open access.
That report, however, "strongly encouraged" EU member states to promote open access publication policies for all publicly funded research. In contrast, the EU Council committed only to supporting "further research of the scientific publication system," and to "study the economic aspects" of digital preservation of scientific publications and research data.
"This is Eurocracy at its best," noted researcher Alma Swan on her blog asserting that "more studies on scientific communication" will not advance European science "one jot."
Indeed, the document does little more than acknowledge the conditions that librarians and publishers have operated in for well over a decade. The report specifically acknowledged publisher contributions, such as improvements in access, while also noting the burdens on libraries and researchers, such as high prices, and the potential for improvement. Among its key "conclusions," the report noted:-
That new, "Internet-based" dissemination models have triggered a major debate involving all concerned stakeholders.
- That rising overall prices of scientific journals have affected libraries.
- The "strategic importance" for Europe to develop "sustainable models" for open access to scientific information.
- The need to ensure "rapid and wide access" to publicly funded research results and the importance of free access to such research on the Internet "under economically viable circumstances, including delayed open access."
- The importance of access to "unprocessed data and repository resources" and policies that allow for "fresh analysis and utilization beyond what the originator of the data had envisaged," including the "data mining, analysis and integration tools, possibly enhanced by common format standards."
Publishers, through the group STM, an international association representing 100 scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publishers, welcomed what it called a "detailed and balanced" report. "We are pleased that the Council Conclusions recognize the unique role and extensive investments made by scientific publishers in the organization of peer review, the management of publication processes, the production, access, distribution, preservation and digitization of scientific knowledge," read an STM statement. STM officials' only major complaint was that the report failed to acknowledge the rapidly growing volume of scientific research "and the inevitable need for greater investment in scientific information provision."
Swan, meanwhile, took issue with some of the Council's conclusions. Specifically, Swan decried the notion of "delayed" open access. "Defining grades of open access is nonsense," she asserted, noting that research is either open access, made available to all immediately when ready to be disseminated, or not. "It is clear that the Council has taken on board the arguments that scientific communication is suboptimal and can be improved," Swan wrote. "Though we should be grateful that there are signs of some sort of grasp of the issues at stake, we have to conclude that the Council still hasn't got the point. If we wish Europe's research and development to move forward at optimal speed, one which is now much faster than it ever could be before, facilitated by the Web, access to research findings must be immediate."
|
|
Librarians, Advocates Slam Senator, Push for Action on Presidential Records Bill
The major library associations this month joined with historians and other open government advocates in slamming Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) for his unexplained blocking of a bill that would repeal a controversial executive order allowing that would allow presidents, ex-presidents, and vice presidents to restrict access to their papers. "It is unconscionable that a single senator can hold up consideration of legislation that will allow the American people to know the full record of this administration, as well as past and future administrations," reads a letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "If Senator Bunning has legitimate concerns with the legislation, he should work with the bill's sponsors to reach a compromise. But to date he has refused to do so, and time on the legislative calendar of the 110th Congress is already growing short." The current Senate session will end January 4, 2008.
Unfortunately, with numerous other legislative hurdles remaining for the current session, including the recent veto of a domestic spending bill, there may be little Reid can do to get the bill moving again this year. On September 24, Bunning objected
to floor consideration of the Presidential Records Act ( H.R. 1255/S. 886), brought up under the Senate's unanimous consent rule that allows "non-controversial" bills to be considered on an expedited basis if unanimously approved. While his block of the bill has drawn wide criticism, Bunning has continued to hold firm, telling reporters only that he believes "the president ought to have the right to withhold any records he chooses."
If passed, the act would establish a deadline for review of records and would limit the authority of former presidents to withhold their records. Currently under Bush's controversial Executive Order 13233, former presidents can indefinitely stretch the review process required before release. The order also grants former presidents and their heir's authority to withhold presidential records by asserting executive privilege. The new bill would also eliminate executive privilege claims for vice presidents. Despite passing on March 14, 2007, by a veto-proof vote of 333-93 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and significant bipartisan support for in the Senate, the bill remains blocked.
"The American people should not be denied their basic right to have the information they need to hold their government accountable," reads the letter to Reid, dated November 19, 2007. "If you fail to bring this bill to the Senate floor, the clamor for more transparency will continue while a veil of secrecy will remain in place long after the Bush Administration has left office. Please bring the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 to the floor now." Library signatories include: the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Society of American Archivists (SAA), and the SLA (Special Libraries Association).
|
| NYPL Buys Historian Schlesinger's Papers
The New York Public Library (NYPL) has acquired the papers of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the late American historian and advisor to President John F. Kennedy. NYPL officials said the Arthur Schlesinger Papers consist of almost 300 linear feet of correspondence spanning nearly eight decades and will be housed in the Library's Manuscripts and Archives Division. The price has been kept confidential, a library spokeswoman said. Schlesinger died in February, 2007, from a heart attack.
The collection, in roughly 250 boxes, includes files, phone logs, audio, video, datebooks, and clippings, as well as manuscripts for most of Schlesinger's books, articles, reviews, and book introductions the oral history interviews, notes, and other materials that Schlesinger used as sources. The papers also contain copies or drafts of nearly all of his presidential writings and speeches, including a draft of George McGovern's 1972 presidential nomination acceptance speech. Schlesinger was a two-time winner of both the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award for his books on presidents John F. Kennedy and Andrew Jackson. Schlesinger's journals begin with those he kept in the mid 1930s as he traveled and end in 1998.
"Professor Schlesinger also loved our Library, and we are privileged to have this truly extraordinary collection with us," said NYPL president Paul LeClerc, in announcing the purchase. David Ferriero, the Andrew W. Mellon director of NYPL, said the papers "form a new foundation of our collection documenting mid and late twentieth century U.S. history and connect with numerous other collections throughout the Library that shed light on this period."
|
| Discussion of Google Scan Plan Heats Up on Blogs
Now this is why we love the Blogosphere. In launching his blog, University of Michigan's (UM) dean of libraries Paul Courant recently offered a spirited defense of UM's somewhat controversial scan plan with Google. That post drew quite a few comments, and a direct response from Siva Vaidhyanathan the author, blogger, and University of Virginia professor currently writing the Googlization of Everything online at the Institute for the Future of the Book; that of course drew a response from Courant. The result? A lively and illuminating dialog on Google's book scanning efforts.
"I am very glad that Paul has entered this conversation," Vaidhyanathan wrote on his Googlization of Everything web site. "His commitment to revolutionizing the role of the public university in the information ecosystem is inspiring." In practice, however, the Google/UM partnership, he adds, is also somewhat troubling. Among Vaidhyanathan's most pressing questions for Courant, the "library copy" provided for under UM's contract with Google. "How is the library copy, that electronic file that Michigan and others receive as payment for allowing Google to exploit their treasures, NOT an audacious infringement of copyright?" Vaidhyanathan asks.
"I must say that I am troubled that the author of a very sensible book about copyright is so enthusiastic about trashing Google," Courant writes, "that he is willing to give up on the uses, notably scholarly uses, permitted in the higher-numbered sections of the Copyright Act. As my institution's copyright lawyer says: 'FAIR USE, it's the law.' My institution believes that when we have Google digitize our holdings we do so under the law and in order to make uses that are not only lawful, but that are completely consistent with the undergirding purpose of copyright law."
Fair Use arguments notwithstanding, the "library copy" remains a bone of contention between litigious publishers and authors and Google. So much so that in its recent deals, such as with the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, (CIC), Google has reconsidered making copies available. Section 4.11 of the CIC/Google agreement states that Google will hold the "University Copy" of these works "in escrow," releasing them to the contributing libraries if the "in-copyright Work becomes public domain;" if the "library party has obtained permission through contractual agreements with copyright holders that includes the right to make a copy of the In-Copyright Work and to provide it to the CIC or Source CIC University;" or if "well established case law exists that in-copyright works can be copied and held" by the libraries without infringing on the rights of a copyright holder.
|
| LAST CHANCE: Wednesday Deadline for LJ's Movers & Shakers 2008
The editors of Library Journal need your help in identifying the emerging leaders in the library world. Our seventh annual Movers & Shakers supplement will profile 50-plus up-and-coming individuals from across the United States and Canada who are innovative, creative, and making a difference.
Because of a technical problem, nominations submitted before November 5 were not captured. Please resubmit! Deadline for submissions has been extended to November 28, 2007! You can nominate someone here, (scroll down the page) or, if you wish to print out and submit the form, you can fax it to 646-746-6734, or send an email to fialkoff@reedbusiness.com.
Profiling innovators from librarians to vendors to others who work in the library field, our Movers & Shakers 2008 will celebrate the new professionals who are moving our libraries ahead. Movers & Shakers 2008 will be distributed with the March 15 issue of Library Journal.
|
Library Journal Academic Newswire
Contributing Editor: Andrew R. Albanese
Phone: 646-746-6852 E-mail: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com
Editor: Francine Fialkoff
Phone: 646-746-6807 E-mail: fialkoff@reedbusiness.com
Executive Editor: Rebecca Miller
Phone: 646-746-6725 E-mail: miller@reedbusiness.com
News Editor: Norman Oder
Phone: 646-746-6829 E-mail: noder@reedbusiness.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to Unsub_Academic_Newswire@email.libraryjournal.com
TO SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to Academic Newswire or our other newsletters
Subscribe to Library Journal magazine
ARCHIVE
Read past issues
PRINT
You must change your print settings from portrait to landscape to print this page.
VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY
Click here
ADVERTISING
Library Journal
1-888-7RBI WEB
Onlineads@reedbusiness.com
Advertising Information
QUESTIONS?
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact our
Online Support Team
Reed Business Information
2000 Clearwater Drive, Oak Brook, IL 60523
MediaSupport@reedbusiness.com?Subject=LJ-"AN"
© 2007 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
