Subject: Re: Library Link discussion (fwd)
Guedon Jean-Claude (guedon@ERE.UMontreal.CA)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:15:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:15:00 -0500 (EST) From: Guedon Jean-Claude <guedon@ERE.UMontreal.CA> Subject: Re: Library Link discussion (fwd) To: arl-ejournal@arl.org In-Reply-To: <9901290618.AA23614@pollux.weihenstephan.de> Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9901290846.B27902-0100000@esi25.ESI.UMontreal.CA>
Birgid Schlindwein <schlind@pollux.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Jean-Claude Guedon <guedon@ere.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >
> > There I disagree with Tony, and I speak as a scholar, a professor, not
> > a librarian (which I am not in anay case). Scholars are the librarians'
> > master or, in any case, should not be. The publishers such as Elsevier,
> > are certainly no tail in that kind of dog. If Elsevier is but a tail,
> > it is a hell of a huge and prosperous one... :-) Kind of top heavy
> > for the whole shebang if you ask me...
> >
> > At present, those who try and assign roles are publishers: just examine
> > licence agreements... And scholars are reduced to being mere consumers
> > in the strictest economic sense, tather than participating users.
>
> No, they are NOT only innocent consumers!! Scholars are the ones that
> feed these Moloch publishers by writing and reviewing for nothing (they
> are paid by public money and public libraries buy those products for a
> lot of money), but also insist on publishers/publishing role for their
> scientific reputation.
>
> Please, do not be proud of this part you play in the game!!
In response to Birgid Schlindwein, allow me to clarify a number of things.
1. I claimed scholars were assigned to a certain role; I did not claim
innocence. At the same time, individual guilt will not substitute for a
macro analysis of the general trends and it will certainly not provide a
sufficient answer to such a deeply rooted problem. In other words, I do
not believe that a kind of Kantian categorical imperative is enough to
solve the question at hand; on the other hand, I do not discount it
either. It can be part of the equation, along with librarians' (and
some scholars') efforts to educate the rest of the scholarly
communities.
2. I am advocating an alliance between willing scholars and librarians
to try and break this infernal circle. Please, do not hurl accusations
wantonly. It will not lead to anything constructive.
3. I am trying to foster a recognition of responsibilities scholars
should recognize, so no need to assign me with any pride about the
scholars' role. I am proud of scholarship as scholarship, but I feel
most of my peers are not aware enough, or prefer not to be aware enough
of the consequences of their strategies aiming at maximizing visibility.
There are deep seated reasons for that, some based on career strategies
(and institutions play a role in this through the evaluation techniques
they use to promote individuals), some based on personal insecurities,
some based on cut-throat competition leading to favorable circumstances
for a divide-and-conquer strategy. When librarians and scholars come to
understand how connected their needs are and when scholars stop treating
librarians simply as service providers, thus refusing any kind of
hierarchical relationship between them, we will have made a great step
forward.
3. I personally agree that scholars should refuse to review papers sent
to them by commercial publishers; an alternative approach could be for
scholars to request a lot of money from commercial publishers to review
papers and that money should automatically be given to their libraries.
I also believe that scholars should avoid publishing with commercial
papers insofar as they think it is possible for them. But solutions
will not come only from a few heroic individuals sacrificing themselves,
however noble and romantic the vision may appear. The solution will
come from making known the real situation. Figures have to be
published, irrespective of whether Gordon and Breach wants to sue or
not, comparisons have to be made and well-designed campaigns have to
be organized to bring this whole issue into the open. Elsevier made
40% profit on its scientific publishing sector (which amounted to 815
million Euros) last year... How many companies can boast such profit
rates? I am not sure Microsoft achieves such profitability.
So, let us not confuse issues. We are in this together. My point is
that scholars are not aware of this enough. This is not a reason to
accuse;but it is a good reason to educate. Let us work toward that
aim together and let us try to bring some rationality to the process
of making the flow of knowledge smooth, as frictionless as possible
and as equitably distributed as possible.
I hope this clarifies the issues a little.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Jean-Claude
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Claude Guedon Tel. 514-343-6208
Departement de litterature comparee Fax. 514-343-2211
Universite de Montreal
CP 6128, Succursale "Centre-ville" Surfaces
Montreal, Qc H3C 3J7
Canada http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/
See you at INET'99, San Jose, June 22-25, 1999
http://www.isoc.org/inet99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Wed Dec 22 1999 - 09:15:05 EST