|
Motes, beams &c.
A while back, Philip Davis over at The Scholarly Kitchen posted about a small but useful research project of his: All I did was ask five librarians at institutions administrating Open Access publication charges two simple questions: This is (to me) clearly information that such programs should be collating and reporting, and after two weeks Davis' results were not exactly stellar: Two weeks after asking my simple questions, I received just two short responses. No list, no numbers, but at least a few details: There was some confusion on the part of faculty of what an OA article publication charge really was. Some faculty requests were actually for page charges in conventional subscription journals; one faculty submitted a request for reprint charges; others submitted invoices to the library when they should have been directed to the external granting agency (like the HHMI). To date, no bonafide requests have been denied. That's useful information, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Davis plays the conspiracy theory card way too hard for my taste, with "dark secrets" in the post title and an opening paragraph that reeks of melodrama: You would have thought I was requesting a field manual for interrogating prisoners of war or a list of members on Dick Cheney's Energy Taskforce. At least in those instances, I would have received a response that answering my questions violated national security or "executive privilege." Whoa, cowboy, back up a minute. As commenter Amanda R pointed out, we don't know much about how Davis went about gathering the information: As a point of clarification, were you directly refused data, or did libraries simply not respond? Did you contact them back and ask why there was no response, or if there was a reason they weren't providing the full data you wanted? In a Friendfeed discussion, librarian Christina Pikas made a related point: the worst part of this is figuring out who you would send a request like that to. It takes me 10 e-mails and 3 phone calls to find the right person at my mothership main library. Almost seems that he's taking confusion for malicious intent as did commenter JQ Johnson: when I in March queried the same institutions that Davis did, I got lots of cooperation. For example, UNC pointed me to a public letter (2/20/2009) to their vice chancellor that summarized in some detail the 12 requests they had funded to date. I'm puzzled why Davis got the response he did. Did he ask the wrong people? Davis replied to both Amanda R and JQJ, but he gave non-answers containing no information about his methodology and insisted that what he had shown was a lack of transparency: Whether the lack of response was caused by human error, technological barriers or internal policy, the result is a lack of transparency in how these author-support programs are performing. I found this very frustrating and left a comment1 aimed at clarifying why that was so: JQJ's comments and questions do not seem to me to skirt the issue at all, but rather to speak directly to alternative explanations for the lack of response. Methodological concerns are not trivial here. Now, it's been almost two weeks since I left that comment, and it hasn't appeared or been answered. What dark secrets is Philip Davis hiding? What dim, Crotty-esque ambitions of being the famous naysayer, the Nicholas Carr of Open Access, are forming even now in the troubled subconscious of this --- Or, you know, I just got stuck in the spam queue. It happens. :-) Davis finishes up by saying something relatively unexceptionable if taken out of the context of his insistence on ignoring both Occam's and Hanlon's razors: Library Open Access policies cannot exist with secret budgets, ambiguous guidelines, and a practice of stonewalling requests for information. Exactly so -- everyone else, including bloggers who wish to hold librarian feet to the accountability fire. Comments Post a comment |
RSS Feed
Links: (formerly Malice Aforethought) me spousal unit Bloglines account Simpy account Connotea account OpenWetWare userpage googlebombs for good Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade abortion Jew Seldovia Herald blogroll: Archives: March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 October 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 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 March 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 |