Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Online Publishing: The Faculty Votes Aye
As the Globe reports, Harvard's FAS voted yesterday to publish scholarly articles and research online for free.
Hundreds of professors voted unanimously for the change at a faculty meeting that culminated several months of meetings debating the move.
...Under the plan, Harvard officials will create an office and repository for professors' finished papers run by the university's library that would instantly make them available on the Internet. It would probably be called the Office for Scholarly Communication.
Would someone at Harvard please do the obvious thing, and initiate a university-wide plan to help professors set up their own web pages, so that they don't need an "Office of Scholarly Communication" (that's really what you're going to call it? Sheesh.) but can simply post their papers on their websites?
(And no, I don't mean the "meet the professor!" webpages that currently exist, but actual, functioning webpages which would allow the professors to post their own work, link to other sites and articles, and blog.)
This is an interesting idea, because it will surely undermine the traditional peer review process, but might just make an entire audience of readers into peer-reviewers. (But we'll see if the OSC website has a "comment" function. I'll happily be proved wrong, but I'll bet you the answer is no.)
In the Chronicle for Higher Education, Princeton scholar Stan Katz has some concerns about the Harvard plan:
The point I want to make about the Harvard proposal is that it can be seen as a move to undercut nonprofit publishers as well as the commercial behemoths (if it is truly a proposal to post all Harvard faculty articles on the university Web site). Depending on the details, it might also be a proposal to bypass peer review, unless Harvard plans to set up its own peer-review process. What social science and humanities faculty have to debate is the merits of entering the world of preprint article circulation that has served the scientists so well. Our scholarship is, I think, significantly different that that of the scientists. Both copyright and publisher peer-review have a long and useful past in our world, and we would do well to think through the implications of abandoning them — though it is hard to imagine that this is what Harvard actually has in mind. ¶ 6:36 AM
Hundreds of professors voted unanimously for the change at a faculty meeting that culminated several months of meetings debating the move.
...Under the plan, Harvard officials will create an office and repository for professors' finished papers run by the university's library that would instantly make them available on the Internet. It would probably be called the Office for Scholarly Communication.
Would someone at Harvard please do the obvious thing, and initiate a university-wide plan to help professors set up their own web pages, so that they don't need an "Office of Scholarly Communication" (that's really what you're going to call it? Sheesh.) but can simply post their papers on their websites?
(And no, I don't mean the "meet the professor!" webpages that currently exist, but actual, functioning webpages which would allow the professors to post their own work, link to other sites and articles, and blog.)
This is an interesting idea, because it will surely undermine the traditional peer review process, but might just make an entire audience of readers into peer-reviewers. (But we'll see if the OSC website has a "comment" function. I'll happily be proved wrong, but I'll bet you the answer is no.)
In the Chronicle for Higher Education, Princeton scholar Stan Katz has some concerns about the Harvard plan:
The point I want to make about the Harvard proposal is that it can be seen as a move to undercut nonprofit publishers as well as the commercial behemoths (if it is truly a proposal to post all Harvard faculty articles on the university Web site). Depending on the details, it might also be a proposal to bypass peer review, unless Harvard plans to set up its own peer-review process. What social science and humanities faculty have to debate is the merits of entering the world of preprint article circulation that has served the scientists so well. Our scholarship is, I think, significantly different that that of the scientists. Both copyright and publisher peer-review have a long and useful past in our world, and we would do well to think through the implications of abandoning them — though it is hard to imagine that this is what Harvard actually has in mind. ¶ 6:36 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I think most of us will agree, Richard, that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. What is needed in this plan is not yet further atomization of the publishing world (though I welcome this antitrust move just undertaken, of course), but some relatively open system by which quality can be tested. This would mean an intensive network of hyperlinks from article to citation, and from article to responses by those qualified to respond.
Who will officiate? This is a fresh version of the perennial question of university power. Let us find some thoughtful, careful leaders to put on a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and set up ground rules. Leaving this resource unregulated will create extremes: some professors will post flippantly, others will hesitate overmuch.
The whole thing has the potential to be a fascinating microcosm of the problems of intellectual community. If only the faculty could get together on things that actually benefit the WIDER academic world, including students: projects like the Google Books digitization of the library.
I have a feeling that after my philippic yesterday all you guys out there are planning an Intervention. I haven't flipped out; it was the espresso talking.
Standing Eagle
Who will officiate? This is a fresh version of the perennial question of university power. Let us find some thoughtful, careful leaders to put on a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and set up ground rules. Leaving this resource unregulated will create extremes: some professors will post flippantly, others will hesitate overmuch.
The whole thing has the potential to be a fascinating microcosm of the problems of intellectual community. If only the faculty could get together on things that actually benefit the WIDER academic world, including students: projects like the Google Books digitization of the library.
I have a feeling that after my philippic yesterday all you guys out there are planning an Intervention. I haven't flipped out; it was the espresso talking.
Standing Eagle
In general, faculty will post articles that have already been accepted and published in journals. The aim is not to undercut specialized journals--to which many scholars will still subscribe because a community of interest is embodied in the ensemble of the articles they publish. Eventually, one would hope that this move will reduce the stranglehold of large commercial publishers who sell journals to libraries only in bundled forms that don't allow an individual to opt out of some parts of the bundle.
I don't know how Harvard professors would have time to blog. Just keeping up my course websites is a huge task in itself.
I don't know how Harvard professors would have time to blog. Just keeping up my course websites is a huge task in itself.
# posted by 
: February 13, 2008 6:46 PM
: February 13, 2008 6:46 PM
The crucial issue is not whose web site the papers go on. It's who owns the papers. Right now, the default is that Elsevier owns many them; in the future, for papers by Harvard authors, the default will be that the professor owns them and grants Harvard a nonexclusive license to make them available. The mechanism by which they are made available is an implementation detail. Yes, an office is needed to help, not to create a web site but to pressure the publishers. It may even help Harvard professors publish scholarly journals in which the publishers are already losing interest. Right now a lot of professors just assign copyright to the journal and then post their papers anyway, inviting litigation.
The problem is not waiting to act until we have thought through what may happen - this has been in the works for quite a while and there has been plenty of thinking. What people really would like is the impossible: to know for certain what will happen. That can't happen, in part because no one can ever predict how the new technologies will affect old forms of communication. Could the effects of the Internet on newspapers and recordings and long distance phone companies could have been predicted with accuracy? As I said in one of the stories today, if you want some indication of what is likely to happen to the peer review system, look at the impact on the physics journals of the physicists long use of archive.org to post their papers. The answer is: no change at all.
No vote by the Harvard faculty can make the Internet disappear, and ultimately it is the very existence of the Internet that is shaking up the publishing world, not Harvard's actions on professors' retention of copyright. Time will simply not stand still while we try to divine the future - and those most impacted by the artificial scarcity of the present system are humanists who see the cuts in library acquisition of monographs and books as more and more of the budget goes to exorbitantly priced journal subscriptions.
The problem is not waiting to act until we have thought through what may happen - this has been in the works for quite a while and there has been plenty of thinking. What people really would like is the impossible: to know for certain what will happen. That can't happen, in part because no one can ever predict how the new technologies will affect old forms of communication. Could the effects of the Internet on newspapers and recordings and long distance phone companies could have been predicted with accuracy? As I said in one of the stories today, if you want some indication of what is likely to happen to the peer review system, look at the impact on the physics journals of the physicists long use of archive.org to post their papers. The answer is: no change at all.
No vote by the Harvard faculty can make the Internet disappear, and ultimately it is the very existence of the Internet that is shaking up the publishing world, not Harvard's actions on professors' retention of copyright. Time will simply not stand still while we try to divine the future - and those most impacted by the artificial scarcity of the present system are humanists who see the cuts in library acquisition of monographs and books as more and more of the budget goes to exorbitantly priced journal subscriptions.
All true, Harry, but on your final point we also need to be quite clear about perhaps the major contributor to the drastic reduction in acqusitions of mongraphs of the last five years or so (during which there has been fairly deep cutting of serials and monograph series as well) -- that which has, again, seen us dip below Yale, and now Princeton, who have been living in the same technological and pricing world.
The library had five or so years of zero increase in unrestricted budget, which constitutes around 50% of the library budget. So the payout on the endowment was slashed by half, since it had to pick up the zero unrestricted growth situation.
No way to treat a great library!
The library had five or so years of zero increase in unrestricted budget, which constitutes around 50% of the library budget. So the payout on the endowment was slashed by half, since it had to pick up the zero unrestricted growth situation.
No way to treat a great library!
# posted by : February 13, 2008 8:33 PM
: February 13, 2008 8:33 PM
Richard (Thomas),
There is something I don't understand.
Could you explain a bit more (particularly ..."the payout on the endowment...") what you mean when you say:
" The library had five or so years of zero increase in unrestricted budget, which constitutes around 50% of the library budget. So the payout on the endowment was slashed by half, since it had to pick up the zero unrestricted growth situation.
Thanks,
Sam
There is something I don't understand.
Could you explain a bit more (particularly ..."the payout on the endowment...") what you mean when you say:
" The library had five or so years of zero increase in unrestricted budget, which constitutes around 50% of the library budget. So the payout on the endowment was slashed by half, since it had to pick up the zero unrestricted growth situation.
Thanks,
Sam
# posted by : February 14, 2008 10:22 AM
: February 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Sure Sam. Endowment portion of the budget has had the usual annual increases, while the FAS unrestricted portion of the budget has had zero growth for four or five years. FAS had other cost issues (CGIS overruns, etc.) and nobody at the top was advocating for the library, so unsqueaky wheel, and all that.
Each portion (endowment and FAS unrestricted fund input) was about 50% of the library budget when I was chair of the Budget subcommittee of the FAS Library Standing Committeee some years ago. So in effect, if not intent, the endowment payout increase has been around half what would be the case in units where there are increases of endowment AND unrestricted fund portions of the budget.
Each portion (endowment and FAS unrestricted fund input) was about 50% of the library budget when I was chair of the Budget subcommittee of the FAS Library Standing Committeee some years ago. So in effect, if not intent, the endowment payout increase has been around half what would be the case in units where there are increases of endowment AND unrestricted fund portions of the budget.
# posted by : February 15, 2008 12:08 PM
: February 15, 2008 12:08 PM
Richard (Thomas). Now I understand what you meant. Many thanks.
It seems to me that there is one relevant question and that is “priorities.” For whatever reason or reasons, in the period you are referring to, The Dean did not allocate the same subvention (unrestricted funds) to the library as had been done in the past… and this dean was a humanities person. Perhaps, his priorities were different from the prior dean.
The other thing I’m about to say is going to get me in big trouble with your former star Latin student (your words)… big trouble, but I’ll say it nonetheless, because it, too, is relevant. Annie is a big reader of Italian fiction in Italian. When she goes to Widener, she continues to be astounded by the fact that every novel that she has wanted to read has been collected, no matter how obscure (and I mean really,really obscure) and no matter what period written, whether last year or a hundred years ago. Clearly, the libraries have made a decision to collect virtually everything in Italian fiction, perhaps at the expense of the Latin resources you and other scholars might want. The librarian has set priorities.
One last note. Because of the growth of the endowment, the restricted funds for the library have grown at a faster rate than one would have expected (and should expect in the future as I’ve mentioned here before… as returns move to lower levels) and so probably helped mitigate a bit, the zero growth in unrestricted.
Best.
It seems to me that there is one relevant question and that is “priorities.” For whatever reason or reasons, in the period you are referring to, The Dean did not allocate the same subvention (unrestricted funds) to the library as had been done in the past… and this dean was a humanities person. Perhaps, his priorities were different from the prior dean.
The other thing I’m about to say is going to get me in big trouble with your former star Latin student (your words)… big trouble, but I’ll say it nonetheless, because it, too, is relevant. Annie is a big reader of Italian fiction in Italian. When she goes to Widener, she continues to be astounded by the fact that every novel that she has wanted to read has been collected, no matter how obscure (and I mean really,really obscure) and no matter what period written, whether last year or a hundred years ago. Clearly, the libraries have made a decision to collect virtually everything in Italian fiction, perhaps at the expense of the Latin resources you and other scholars might want. The librarian has set priorities.
One last note. Because of the growth of the endowment, the restricted funds for the library have grown at a faster rate than one would have expected (and should expect in the future as I’ve mentioned here before… as returns move to lower levels) and so probably helped mitigate a bit, the zero growth in unrestricted.
Best.
# posted by : February 17, 2008 7:05 AM
: February 17, 2008 7:05 AM
Thanks for yours, Sam. Your last point would apply for all units, no? It has helped mitigate as you say, but not much against dollar performance, fringe increases, double digit serial increases, etc.
A great research library needs to be supported from the very top of a university's administration all the way down through the chain of command. Nuff said there.
Widener, rather Harvard College Library (unusually) collects by language of publication not by field, so the team that collects our friend's Italian novels also collects my Italian monographs on Virgil or Dylan, (and those on history, economics, political science, etc.), and that team has done very well, but not as well last year as six years ago.
Post a Comment
A great research library needs to be supported from the very top of a university's administration all the way down through the chain of command. Nuff said there.
Widener, rather Harvard College Library (unusually) collects by language of publication not by field, so the team that collects our friend's Italian novels also collects my Italian monographs on Virgil or Dylan, (and those on history, economics, political science, etc.), and that team has done very well, but not as well last year as six years ago.
<< Home
