RE: Open Access in Europe

["Belder, K.F.K. de" <K_F_K_de_Belder@library.leidenuniv.nl>]

Having worked myself at a number of US and Dutch university libraries I
think your and Dale Askey's analysis is not quite correct.  Granted, there
are certainly distinctions between the Western European and US research
library practice which, I'm glad to say, are diminishing rapidly.  But
these distinctions are nevertheless different from the ones you list in
your message.

When I compare some of the important Dutch and US research libraries,
access to the collections by the public that is not affiliated to the
institution is really not the issue.  Anyone can walk into a Dutch
university library or the Royal Library for that matter, obtain a reader's
card at virtually no cost and use the collections.  This is not different
from the practice in US university libraries.

A distinction one could make, which might also be the reason why it is
still perceived that "access in/to European libraries is often very
difficult or not generally permitted", is that the spirit of public
service is much more prominent in US libraries than in European ones.  
The public service mission of US libraries has been prominent for years
and realized practically by (usually) helpful reference librarians at
reference desks, remote support such as ' Ask the Librarian', a greater
emphasis on creating different types of access aids and tools to the
collection, and a greater orientation on the student user and the
educational function of libraries than in Europe.  In general, the care of
the collection itself has remained the prime focus for European libraries
(which did not necessarily translate in better collections at the average
university library) and not the user of these collections and his/her
information needs.  Again this is changing very rapidly (and so much for
the better) on this side of the Atlantic.

It seems to me that your and Dale's view that "universities in some
countries may have different publication requirements for tenure than do
American ones, so they may not have as strong a concern for publishing in
refereed journals as we do, hence some possible additional enthusiasm for
self-archiving" is to a large extent outdated.  The pressure on faculty in
the exact, medical and social sciences to publish in internationally
renowned refereed journals is at e.g. Dutch universities as high as at the
US universities I know.  This is not to say that there are no differences
in the way research is organized and funded but the alleged difference you
point out is certainly not the one that comes to my mind.

How does this then relate to OA?  It is certainly true that for a number 
of Western European countries OA and OAI are strong topics, but not that 
different from the initiatives and discussions in the US.  At the last 
CNI (Coalition for Networked Information) meetings (in Washington DC and 
Portland OR) Open Access and Open Archives were major topics and a 
number of prominent universities reported on a variety of initiatives 
that parallel European initiatives.  I do agree that some libraries in 
Europe - such as e.g. Dutch libraries - are taking a lead role 
vis-a-vis most US university libraries.

How can this be explained?

1. I think a number of Dutch (UK, Scandinavian and German) libraries have
woken up in the last 5-7 years and started thinking more innovatively
about their services and mission that they had done before.  This could
mean that European libraries that awakened to a digital reality more
recently have perhaps taken initiatives that are ahead of those (US)
libraries that were already quite awake for many years but might have lost
some of their edge in this area.

2. I also believe that differences in the organization of scholarly
communication (compare e.g. Dutch/US) might be more fruitful to look into
for an explanation why OA/OAI is getting a stronger focus in e.g.  the
Netherlands than the US.  In the Netherlands most of the scientific
journals are now in the hands of a number of large commercial publishers
(Elsevier, Kluwer, Springer, etc.).  Premiere journals that used to be
published by Dutch scholarly societies and universities have been taken
over by these commercial publishers or have disappeared.  In the US we can
notice, at this point, a much more diversified publication market for
researchers in the STM field.  I'm thinking about a number of scholarly
societies that publish some of the most important titles in their field
but also about initiatives such as the Highwire Press that have allowed
these societies to compete with the digital wave of commercial publishers.
The greater OA/OAI emphasis might very well be partially explained by this
difference in the organization of scholarly communication.

3. One other important reason for the perceived difference in emphasis on
OA/OAI is that libraries and universities in e.g. the Netherlands
collaborate much more closely than the more competitive model that exists
in higher education in the US.  Whatever can be said on the pro and con
side of both models, one result of the closer collaboration is that when
Dutch universities and libraries finally make a decision to take up a
particular initiative it becomes more easily a nationwide effort - e.g.
the DARE initiative in the Netherlands - and the impact becomes
automatically much greater than the piecemeal approach that is more
typical for the US.

I'm sorry for this longish expose, but I hope my remarks can have some 
value in this discussion.

Kind regards,         Kurt

Kurt De Belder
University Librarian & Director University Library
Leiden University

T: +31 71 5272831
F: +31 71 5272836
E: k.f.k.de.belder@library.leidenuniv.nl

W: http://website.leidenuniv.nl/~belderkfkde/english.htm

Visitors: University Library, Witte Singel 27, Leiden, The Netherlands
Mail: University Library, P.O. Box 9501, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands