|
 | NIH Public Comments Reveal Librarian Support, Publisher Anxiety
More than 430 public comments
from a range of stakeholders were filed prior to last week's public hearing regarding the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) public access mandate. As expected, the comments adhered closely to arguments made throughout the legislative process. The policy is set to become effective on April 7th, 2008. It requires researchers with NIH funding to deposit their final articles to PubMed Central (PMC) to be made available within a year of publication.
In public comments, publishers reiterated concerns about the policy's effect on the scholarly journals market, and some again called for a formal federal rulemaking process before implementation. "Without careful review, comment, negotiation, and implementation of NIH's public access policy, some well-established and respected scientific journals could be forced out of business," commented Frederick Dylla, representing the American Institute of Physics (AIP), an umbrella organization representing ten societies and 130,000 scientists.
Ironically, Dylla pointed to the dismal results of the NIH's previous voluntary policy in 2005, saying it failed because of a lack of engagement between the NIH and publishers of scientific journals. "To avoid a similar failed implementation this time," he warned, "the NIH should be required to follow the full rulemaking process that the federal government has put in place prior to implementing new rules that have significant impact on the private sector."
Librarians and educators, meanwhile, strongly defended the NIH policy-and spoke of the lengthy process of consideration it has already gone through, urging that implementation now proceed as planned. In its comments, SPARC reiterated that all stakeholders have had ample time to consider the policy dating back to 2004. SPARC said that it has, along with many other stakeholders, created "several programs to help to pave the way for the smooth implementation of the revised policy," including a range of educational initiatives and practical tools. It also took aim at publishers seeking to block the policy, stating that "a small but vocal number of publishers continue to make the misleading and incorrect assertion that this policy will somehow put authors into conflict with copyright law."
Many librarians and educators used the comments to constructively anticipate challenges and keys to successful implementation. "It would be very helpful for [grantees], grant administrators, librarians, and others involved in the process of compliance with the NIH Public Access policy to know how the NIH plans to measure compliance with the policy, and whether there will be opportunity for instances of non-compliance to be cured," observed University of Wisconsin librarian Dorothea Salo.
Salo also asked the NIH to consider how to resolve instances where the "author's final peer-reviewed manuscript may differ in important ways from the published article," so that articles in PMC were absolutely accurate. She also addressed publishers in her comments, calling it "a serious flaw" that the NIH Public Access policy "lacks incentives for publishers," as well as suggesting there be "consequences for recalcitrant publishers."
|
|
For Sale? Bookseller Borders Hires Finance Firms To Review Options
Bookseller Borders announced last week that that it has hired J.P. Morgan Securities and Merrill Lynch to help launch a "review" of its strategic alternatives-which could include the sale of the company or some of its divisions. In addition, Borders reported that Pershing Capital, a private equity firm with a large stake in Borders and two board seats, has agreed to lend the company $42.5 million and to acquire Borders's Australian, New Zealand, Singapore, and Paperchase subsidiaries for $125 million-if Borders cannot find a better deal.
"The review process will include the investigation of a wide range of alternatives," read a Borders statement, "including the sale of the company and/or certain divisions for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value." Officials, however, added that there are "no assurances that a transaction of any kind will occur." Borders reported that fourth quarter income from 2007 was $84.7 million, down from $87.7 million in the previous year. Borders group CEO George Jones acknowledged that 2008 "will be a challenging year for retailers due to continued uncertainty in the economic environment."
Meanwhile, LJ sister publication Publishers Weekly reported that rival bookseller Barnes & Noble, while not yet approached regarding Borders, told reporters in a year-end conference call it could have interest in buying its rival. B&N also recently reported an off year, with net income down nearly 10 percent for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2008. B&N CEO Mitch Klipper told reporters that B&N's bottom line was hit in the fourth quarter by the "rapid deterioration" of music sales, and that customer traffic at B&N stores was down slightly.
|
| Triangle Research Libraries Network Launches New Search Function
The Triangle Research Libraries Network (TRLN) pioneered the nation's first consortial online catalog back in the 1980s, and this week, took that legacy a step further with the launch of "Search TRLN", which officials say adds "next-generation search capabilities" to the consortium's combined collection of 16 million volumes. Search TRLN, is a new single-interface discovery tool, enabling users to search across the entire collections of the four member institutions: Duke University, North Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It takes advantage of the "faceted searching" and browsing capabilities of Endeca software, and builds on the traditional strengths of TRLN's cooperative collecting and interlibrary delivery services. In a release, TRLN officials described Search TRLN a "one-stop access to the entire body of TRLN's collections."
|
| Turnitin.com Wins Copyright Suit
A federal judge in Virginia has dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by high school students over the use of the students' written works in the Turnitin.com plagiarism detection service. The case was defended (and dismissed) on the merits of Turnitin's contract terms, but, notably, the company had also made a secondary, fair use defense, which U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton found compelling. Hilton acknowledged that while iParadigms, creators of Turnitin.com, copied papers and created an archive that made "a profit providing this service to educational institutions," its use of the works it copied and archived were sufficiently transformative, and thus protected under fair use.
The case began roughly a year ago, after high school students in McLean, VA, filed a suit charging that the Turnitin.com service is partly based on a violation of copyright law. The software operates by archiving submitted papers, then crosschecking submissions against its archive for similarities that could indicate plagiarism. The students charged that without permission, that archiving constitutes unauthorized copying. They sought as much as $900,000 in damages.
University of Texas scholarly communications advisor Georgia Harper, said that the Turnitin.com verdict, and others, are beginning to shed more light on how courts are viewing fair use claims-and the news is encouraging-especially for Google. "We now have a very nice representation among the circuits (9th, 2nd, 4th) of recent fair use analyses that find that massive copying and using in their entirety, even creative works, for new commercial uses that provide significant public benefit, is a fair use 1) when there is no or only speculative market harm to the market for the original (all of the Google search cases so far)," Harper blogged. She said it is starting to look good for fair use in the digital age-at least in the lower courts. "The lower courts are doing what Congress seems incapable of doing-ratcheting down instead of up."
|
| Announcement: LJ Seeks Nominations for Library of the Year
Library Journal is still accepting nominations for the 2008 Library Journal/ Gale Library of the Year award—but the April 1 deadline is approaching. The $10,000 prize celebrates the library that most profoundly demonstrates: service to the community; creativity and innovation in developing specific community programs or a dramatic increase in library usage; and leadership in creating programs that can be emulated by other libraries.
Along with the cash award, the winner is featured in the June 15, 2008, LJ cover story and honored with a gala reception at the American Library Association Annual Conference. Past winners have gained immeasurable prestige within their community and national media attention, often resulting in improved relations with local politicians and increased budgets. It is an honor that resonates for a lifetime.
Submission requirements: A library may be nominated by itself or by a community member. Each entry must include: nominee name, address, and phone number, plus the name of the contact person and the submitter's contact information if different from the nominee; a written explanation of up to several pages, or a list of bulleted narrative points clearly enumerating how your library's accomplishments fit the award criteria. And here's quick tip: past entries describing programs and their effects on the community were especially helpful to the judges. While supporting materials, such as brochures, testimonials, press clippings, etc., may be included and are helpful, they are less important than the written narrative.
Statistical data must include: population served; total annual budget; per capita budget; circulation; percent of the budget spent on materials; visits; e-use (in-house and remote if available); number of staff; percentage of staff who are professional librarians. If you do not have all of these statistics, then submit at least the first six. The judges do not make selections based on numbers, though they are helpful in giving context to the written submission.
Send the completed nomination package postdated by Tuesday, April 1, 2008 to: Library of the Year Award, c/o Library Journal, 360 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010. Show the world that you're the best. Good luck!
|
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
QUESTIONS?
If you need further assistance with your newsletter subscription, please contact our Online Support Staff.
Send editorial questions about this newsletter to: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com.
RBInteractive: onlineads@reedbusiness.com, (888) 7RBI-WEB.
PRIVACY MANAGER: privacymanager@reedbusiness.com
Reed Business Information 2000 Clearwater Drive Oak Brook, IL 60523 | Fax: 630-288-8394
© 2007 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2008 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
