I’m sitting waiting for about 1 million files to transfer from one laptop to another – in the Computer Officer hideout where we have really strong coffee. I tend to twitch about such transfers – rather like a hermit crab – but I can spend the time blogging about APE2008 (see earlier posts APE2008 more thoughts and recursive links from that).
The final session on the last day was about money. I didn’t take notes (no battery left). My impressions were that som new journals can manage on considerably reduced costs – a few hundred dollars. Of course there isn’t a one-size-fits-all – it’s clear that when a journal rejects 90% of submissions their costs are somewhat higher than one with a high acceptance rate. However some publishers spend a lot of money on things that IMO don’t merit it. For example marketing – I remember a figure of 30% (not sure what of) but certainly many domains won’t need that. And tutorials for information products. Should we be needing tutorials on modern products? How many five-year-olds need teaching how to use Google? Or Facebook? If you want help, ask the family. So one message to “author-pays” models is “challenge the costs”. I’m going to stop using “author-pays” and substitute “organisation pays”. The organisation might be a university, a funder, a learned society, a national organisation (e.g. JISC), the publisher themselves in hardship cases, and so on. Few authors pay, and shouldn’t be expected to do so. This is clearly something that academia has to tackle for non-funded non-science subjects.
The next morning had a session:
Panel Discussion: What Matters? The Future Role of Libraries in Science and Society? Swallowed by OA Repositories, turned into University Presses or kept as Book Museums?
Here I have a problem. I appreciate that libraries have many roles and I’m a keen supporter. Guardianship of scholarship, preservation, access, etc. But this doesn’t come across in science. I see librarians because I’m working on information-rich projects but if I didn’t I wouldn’t. How many PhD chemistry students will come to the library
. (We have a lovely library in our building, funded by Unilever, and students like working there because it’s quiet. But we wouldn’t build the same facility today. And Henry tells me that Imperial has closed its departmental library. They have a nice quiet work area – with terminals – but it’s not a library. Librarians cannot make a new role out of being super-purchasing and contract officers for information – scientists neither see nor care. So I challenged the panel with this and similar points.
Science and technology move so fast that none of us can keep up. Subject librarians trained on the classical model cannot provide what scientists need. The bioscientists look to PubMed, EBI, PDB, etc as the repositories of knowledge – not to their institutions. What they need are information scientists embedded in their laboratories. People who know how to hack perl, python, Java, XML, RDF, RSS, etc. Where the flow of meta-information is from the scientist to the information scientists as well as the other way round. It’s a tall order. But the average 18-year old does not look in a library for scientific information – they look to Google and Wikipedia (which is why I contribute when I can find time).
Thes views are reinforced by what the biscoientists and physicists are doing. They create domain repositories. They either have large national or international organisations which are beneficient and wish to oversee the free movement of scientific infomation. With bio- it’s Pubmed and Pubchem, NCBI, PDB, EBI, etc. and with physics it’s arXiv and SCOAP3. These are domain repositories and that’s what we critically need.
I can see that certain primary research will naturally go to IRs – mandated fulltext, theses, etc. But many will see Pubmed and SCOAP3 as the primary places, not their institution. Even where the material is in IRs we need domain metadata tools to extract it properly. (How do you look for a sequence in your IR? a chemical substructure? a spectrum? a partial differential equation?) The problem will be solved in big science. But in long-tail science we need global or national domain repositories and we need departmental repositories for the initial capture. If there are embedded information scientists then that is one of the first things they can be doing to help the community.
… still a few hundred thousand files to go (these are all part of our molecular repository effort). Why’s it on the laptop? Because it fits quite well on planes and trains…
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- pm286 on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Hiperterminal on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Next steps for Text & Data Mining | Unlocking Research on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Publishers prioritize “self-plagiarism” detection over allowing new discoveries | Alex Holcombe's blog on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Kytriya on Let’s get rid of CC-NC and CC-ND NOW! It really matters
-
Archives
- June 2018
- April 2018
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
-
Categories
- "virtual communities"
- ahm2007
- berlin5
- blueobelisk
- chemistry
- crystaleye
- cyberscience
- data
- etd2007
- fun
- general
- idcc3
- jisc-theorem
- mkm2007
- nmr
- open issues
- open notebook science
- oscar
- programming for scientists
- publishing
- puzzles
- repositories
- scifoo
- semanticWeb
- theses
- Uncategorized
- www2007
- XML
- xtech2007
-
Meta
I substantially agree with this (and would love to become an embedded librarian!) — in fact, at MPOW it’s already working quite well in the social sciences.
I point out, however, that there’s no technical reason IRs and domain Rs can’t replicate and exchange information among themselves — just social, organizational, and not-developed-yet reasons. OAI-ORE will help, if we implement it and we get the social structures and licenses in place. APIs now!
(1) Well, we are off to eChemistry tomorrow to start one of the first projects involving ORE. I’m not sure whether we want to replicate except for robustness (LOCKSS-like). I prefer to have single copoies of complex objects as otherwise there is a real chance of confusion (even without versions).
Pingback: Science Library Pad