I think also one should be asking just how little or how much
involvement LIS faculty members may have or not have in terms of
requesting materials at all for university purchase outside of their
own course reserves (much requested by masters/doctoral student
workers for courses) --i.e. do they act as subject experts for library
purchasing i.e. liaisons or LIS bibliographers? many programs don't
even teach bibliography anymore or welcome such research in the
curriculum or in the background of their graduate students anymore.

There are many questions one could ask, not only onces about
publication & costs.
Just another view.

Cheers,
KW

Karen Weaver, MLS, Electronic Resources Statistician, Duquesne
University, Gumberg Library, Pittsburgh PA email: [log in to unmask] /
Gmail: [log in to unmask]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> OK, folks. Quite apart from this nice little bilateral discussion
> that has now arisen, . . .
>
> The simple fact remains that the product in question has met
> with an exceptionally meager reception. And that this means
> that all of that fantastic content on which so many colleagues
> have expended such effort not merely is "not freely available"
> -- it is hardly accessible at all to probably the vast majority
> of those fellow professionals in the world who could -- and
> should be able to -- directly benefit from its use. Or to those
> who ( like me ) would in any event very much like at least to
> be in a position to consult the resource from time to time. Or
> to most students or, say, interdisciplinary researchers.  Not to
> mention its (non)accessibility to an interested, or potentially
> interested, general public.
>
> Shouldn't this by itself give pause, and occasion for reflection,
> to all concerned -- not least of all to those who have actually
> participated in bringing the project to fruition ?
>
> That's the real issue, no ?  Was the chosen approach indeed
> the best one ? A right one ?  Why has such a large portion
> of the projected, and potential, market not been convinced ?
> And what can be done to right the matter -- beyond pathetic
> appeals to reconsider and finally shell out that three grand,
> aimed at the hardcore LIS education sector ?  Are there
> perhaps broader implications here for questions of scholarly
> communication, professional development, and progress in
> our field ? For the health, or even survival, of our field ?
>
> Silly questions ?  Anyway, enough questions.
>
> And answers ?
>
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
>   Breukelen, Nederland
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sue Easun <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 1:36:53 AM
> Subject: Re: A special appeal
>
>> > "Freely available" is not the same thing as "free."
>>
>>   I did not say that it was.
> I see. I assumed when you countered the horrendouus $3,000 price tag with
> your previous offer "to make the chapters freely available on E-LIS," that
> you were negating the need for cost recovery. So is it the publisher's
> profit margin you think out of line?
>
>> > Money still has to change hands at some point. And I see there are
>> a
>> > lot of organizations putting membership and other dollars into
>> > E-LIS.
>>
>>   I am not aware of that. As far as I understand, CILEA maintains
>> the
>>   server. The editors work as volunteers.
> Then CILEA is paying for the server space!!!! My point is, someone/thing is.
> Nice that CILEA can afford it.
> And while E-LIS may be "freely available" now--discounting, of course, the
> fact that someone/thing is paying for the internet access by which each of
> us gets to the site in the first place--will it be able to do so ad
> infinitum? Let's hope so.
> (Guess all of the other associations listed are just providing the
> equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Sorry if I
> misunderstood.)
> It's easy to forget that big bad corporate publishers absorb a lot of costs
> we take for granted when singing the praises of "free availability."
> I guess what annoyed me about the original message was the public slap at
> Marcia and Mary for wasting their time, and the efforts of their
> contributors--for example, and I quote, "most of us just don't need these
> articles"--when they were simply wanting to generate more sales.
> SueE
> Sue Easun
> ca.linkedin.com/in/sueeasun