Upon hindsight, I must first admit that the words I chose in
my
previous post, 'livid' and 'ridiculous' are somewhat
hyperbolic.
To those who base their retort on the choice of these words,
I'm
happy to substitute 'concerned' and 'problematic.'
Surveys and interviews of authors repeatedly confirm that
author-rights are not very important to academics in their
choice
where to publish. To argue that authors don't understand
what
they are signing essentially confirms that they are
ambivalent
about author rights and put more weight on other journal
characteristics, namely: prestige, timeliness, peer review,
etc.
Contrary to the storybook version of science, in which
scientists
tirelessly and selflessly toil to advance knowledge and the
welfare of society, we must accept a more realistic view in
which
the scientists are principally motivated by their desire to
obtain recognition from their peers. The formal publication
process represents this exchange of information
(manuscripts) for
social recognition [1]. Geog Franck describes scientific
communication as a 'vanity fair.' [2]
What initially irked me about Heather Morrison's post was
the
real notion that librarians may be basing their collection
decisions on the values *they* believe are important, as
opposed
to the values authors and readers believe are important.
Garvey's
seminal book in which he coined the well-known phrase
'communication is the essence of science' [3] did something
amazing for the field of librarianship, he *actually
recognized*
librarians as peers in the communication process -- not
glorified
secretaries and clerks, but peers! It therefore concerns me
when
the ethos of librarianship (or perhaps the disproportionate
voices of a few), changes the role of the librarian from
helping
to *facilitate* the scholarly communication process to
controlling it. Or to be more explicit, exerting their own
values
into a model that has been developed to serve those who are
not
librarians. This is the basis of my earlier reference to my
mother making me eat my greens.
While I acknowledge the other side of the argument
(librarians as
fiscal managers, librarians as social welfare maximizers,
librarians as championing the rights of the
disenfranchised), we
are essentially arguing from different value frames. I see
the
role of librarians as facilitators of the formal scholarly
communication process [4]. This is a position of great
responsibility and something not to dismiss lightly. I don't
imagine that these values will ingratiate me with a list
devoted
to librarianship, although I feel they need to be expressed
since
they underscore the rationale of my previous post.
--Phil Davis
Notes:
[1] Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New
York:
Basic Books.
[2] Franck, G. (1999). Scientific Communication--A Vanity
Fair?
Science, 286(5437), 53-55.
[3] Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of
science :
facilitating information exchange among librarians,
scientists,
engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon Press.
[4] I want to distinguish the formal publication process as
a
small part of the whole scholarly communication process.
Most of
the communication of science is informal.
|
