RE: Asking for your input re. scholarly publishing developments

["Colin Steele" <Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au>]

Just several quick thoughts. Look forward to catching up with Ann and her
talk at the Fiesole Collection Development Retreat later this month in
Melbourne.
http://www.caval.edu.au/fiesole2005/Fiesole%202005%20Program.pdf

Just off tomorrow to the ALPSP conference in London which should certainly
have some indicators as to how Faculty habits, their settings and
scholarly publishing may change. http://www.alpsp.org/events/s080405.htm

One of the key factors that we have noticed is that academic communication
at the informal level (and it is definitely at the desktop) has grown
exponentially through email, RSS, blogs, and that their research has
proliferated far beyond the textual, eg eresearch- Mode 2 science but that
their publications are still largely enshrined in the reward systems of
Mode 1 publication. See the Houghton report: "Changing Research Practices
..." http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00002196/01/c_res_pract.pdf

The impact of university league tables and research assessment exercises
will still continue to exercise the academic mind so that where one is
published takes often greater precedence than the content of the article.
One of the future challenges will be how to formally embed new reward
systems in governmental and research grant accreditations.

On other fronts, the rise of the new ePresses and maybe the deconstruction
of the academic monograph and the need to debate public good output costs
of institutions as well as input costs will be key factors for the future.
Realise haven't looked at the past as much as Ann wanted, but clearly the
transforming nature of the library as physical place and the research
access at the desktop with consequent implications were two of the major
factors in the Australian context.

Colin

--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
University Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002)
and Director Scholarly Information Strategies (2002-2003)
W.K. Hancock Building (043)
The Australian National University  
Canberra  ACT 0200
Australia

Tel +61 (0)2 612 58983
Fax +61 (0)2 612 55526
Email: colin.steele@anu.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Aline Soules
Sent: Tuesday, 29 March 2005 10:21 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Asking for your input re. scholarly publishing developments

Ann:  I think one development has been the changes in how faculty choose
to work.  Faculty are driving the demand for "one-stop shopping," "the
complete workstation," etc. and that is requiring us to move from our
traditional models to models that drive data to the desktop.  I
particularly note this among our recent hires.  And this is not just an
issue of their traveling more; it's how they work.  The blend of work and
other aspects of life is also a factor.  This is unsurprising, also, but
it's an element that is not reflected in your brief comments below.  And
it's not just happening with content (which is your focus) -- it's
happening with service as well, e.g., chat ref (24/7), e-mail ref.

As for question 2, my question in return is did we choose or did the
development choose us?  There's a strong sense that technology is driving
us.  As for choosing a product over its competition, e.g., SFX, Serials
Solutions, etc., etc., I think the traditional reasons apply, e.g.,
politics, consortial decisions made system-wide (my situation), price,
particular features that are particularly important to an individual
institution at that particular moment in time, etc.

Aline Soules, Associate University Librarian
California State University, East Bay
tel. 510-885-4596
e-mail:  asoules@csuhayward.edu (until Apr. 20); 
aline.soules@csueastbay.edu (after Apr. 20)

Liblicense-L Listowner wrote:

>Dear Liblicense-l readers:  For a talk I'm giving later this spring, I've
>been asking colleagues a pair of questions, which I'd also like to pose to
>readers of this list.  I'd be glad to summarize the answers and would 
>appreciate hearing from you this week if possible.
>
>Question #1:  Over the last ten years, what strategies or developments
>have particularly and visibly influenced the way scholarly publishing and
>library collections development are done?
>
>[For example, some unsurprising answers so far have been:  Ejournal
>aggregations (such as JSTOR, HighWire, Muse); The Big Deal; Google; Open
>Access; Consortia]
>
>Question #2:  What has been the high or transforming impact of the
>developments you chose (i.e., why did you name them?)
>
>Please do answer and please don't feel limited by the list above.
>
>Thank you, Ann Okerson
>Yale Library