This is T Scott's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following T Scott's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
T Scott
Recent Activity
Tom -- actually, it's worse then that. I'm picking up one extra evening of cooking, which I'll enjoy, but I'm going to do cleanup every night. And Lynn can be a very messy cook. But it's only fair. These last few years she's had to take over almost all of the household chores which has interfered with her own retirement. So I need to take on some of the things that I can manage.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2017 on What Comes Next at T. Scott
Counting the refugees is tricky -- the numbers I quoted are here: But you're quite right that the numbers don't answer the ethical question.
Toggle Commented Nov 18, 2015 on Epistemology at T. Scott
As I pointed out in my Doe lecture ( librarians contribute to this misconception by continually talking about what "the library" does, rather than what librarians do.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on What Librarians Do at Marcus' World
For our Boston gig I was actually toying with sticking a rap verse into something but I didn't get around to figuring it out. Mostly I just wanted to blow my bandmates' minds.
Toggle Commented Jan 17, 2014 on Hip-Hop Fan at T. Scott
Yes, the filter caught it (nothing personal!). Let me see if I can release it.
Toggle Commented Dec 13, 2013 on The Magical Thinking of Professor Harnad at T. Scott
Many congratulations! This bodes well for CILIP and as a very interested observer from across the pond, I am very pleased.
Toggle Commented Nov 27, 2013 on Elected to CILIP Council at Tom Roper's Weblog
1 reply
ILPUK. Lovely way it rolls off the tongue (with a nice little click in the back of the throat). My university ( is currently using "Knowledge That Will Change Your World" as our tag line (the U.S. version of "strap line"). Does this mean that we can all join CILIP/ILPUK since it is the organization for those in the "knowledge professions"?
Toggle Commented Aug 21, 2013 on The mountains have laboured... at Tom Roper's Weblog
1 reply
I've been watching events with great interest and although your motion didn't pass, the vote tally indicates substantial concern among the membership with the way things have been proceeding. I hope you'll be able to leverage this to make CILIP a more open, transparent and responsive organization.
1 reply
Kent -- thanks for chiming in. I think what was most significant about the STM session was simply the range of opinions and approaches reflected in the publishing community. If librarians would spend more time engaging with publishers they would realize that there are, in fact, many people in that community that we can work with effectively.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2013 on Not FASTR Enough at T. Scott
Bill -- I'm not sure I follow you. Is this a case of sarcasm not playing well on the internet? Mike -- I wish that SPARC would drop the adversarial stance and try to work with publishers to build on what they're currently doing in order to try to shape things in a direction that works for all of the stakeholders. I don't expect that to happen. Professor Harnad -- your views are well known. Does cutting and pasting the abstract of a 3-year old article into a comment constitute spam?
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2013 on Not FASTR Enough at T. Scott
Marcus -- I'm glad you caught that. It was intended to be rather tongue-in-cheek.
Toggle Commented Jan 31, 2013 on Still Inconclusive at T. Scott
I'm so glad to hear it's been restored. I was dumbstruck when I first saw it back in the eighties. When the renovations were finally done some years ago and I first had a chance to see the Folk Art wing, I was afraid it wouldn't be on display anymore. Then I saw what had been done with it and I actually cried. I get back to DC a couple of times a year (I lived there for several years in the mid-eighties) and I always try to stop by to spend a few minutes. It really is a sacred space.
1 reply
I'm looking forward to it... See you there...
Toggle Commented Oct 3, 2012 on Back to the Planes at T. Scott
Reminds me of one of my friend Lonnie's favorite quotes: "A moment's thought would have shown him his error -- but thought is difficult, and a moment is a long time."
You may very well be right. It may be that the incremental approach that FRPAA represents is the best that we can do right now. And yet, when I talk to people in publishing I don’t hear much resistance to Open Access. Marty Frank, at APS, has been the most vocal of the society publishers in his opposition to FRPAA and to the NIH Policy, but he’s been a leader among the Highwire publishers in making content freely available and he’s the one who helped develop and push the linking proposal that I reference in this post. During the discussions that led to the report from the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, it became clear that the big commercial publishers were quite willing to consider some form of funder-supported gold OA. The big publishers (commercial and not-for-profit), given their significant investments in infrastructure, definitely get the importance of standards for interoperability and the importance of preservation/archiving. So I think the sad irony is that the focus on FRPAA has actually been an impediment. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the folks at OSTP are smart enough to ignore all of the RWA/FRPAA noise.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2012 on We Can Do Better Than FRPAA at T. Scott
I stand corrected! Kudos to ISTL.
And to Ben -- I'm not falling in with the publishers. I don't fall in with anybody. I agree with some policies of some publishers and disagree strongly with some policies of others. I'm a strong supporter of OA (and helped to make the JMLA the first major open access library journal back in 2000), but think it should be to the version of record. I disagree with SPARC on tactics and I think FRPAA is a poor legislative solution. I like the idea of funders setting up peer review mechanisms and wish that NIH would take a stronger role in supporting Gold OA. All I'm trying to address in this post is that the policies make it explicit that there is something publishers do that the policy makers feel is essential. I would certainly agree that some publishers add little value and many are perhaps not being as innovative as we might wish, but I'm afraid that a blanket statement that "publishers" aren't doing this or that without acknowledging the tremendous variation among publishers is kind of meaningless.
To Joe: My point here is only that the publishers are apparently doing something that the policy makers feel is essential and which they, for some reason, have decided not to try to duplicate. In my previous post I suggest something similar to what you say here -- let's have a requirement that funded researchers publish in OA journals, and provide, within the grant, some mechanism for funding that. Regarding Elsevier just refusing to publish those papers, yes, in theory they could refuse to take those articles, although for any journal that publishes a substantial number of papers that come from funded research that would be suicide. When you offer somebody two options (refuse to publish the papers, or comply with the policy) and one of the options will put them out of business it's not really much of a choice. It kinda reminds me of the reactions of librarians to the suggestion that they should just quit buying Elsevier products if those products are so grossly overpriced. It's also worth pointing out that Elsevier was providing authors' final versions of NIH-funded papers back when the policy was voluntary. Before the policy became mandatory, compliance was hovering around 7%. It would've been around 3-4% if it weren't for the documents that Elsevier was supplying. It's not the deposit that Elsevier objects to, it's the compulsion. I'm not defending Elsevier here -- I strongly disagree with their support of RWA and I'm one of very few librarians who has walked away from the Big Deal. I just think that the situation is more complex than many of Elsevier's most vocal critics apparently do.
Tom -- thanks. And yes, your situation is precisely the kind of things I'm talking about -- that we now have opportunities to provide services much more where people need them rather than waiting for them to come to us.
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2012 on The Great Age of Librarians at T. Scott
ILL is expensive, so to the degree that OA reduces the need for it, that's a savings. But I'm of the opinion that we'll need some manner of resource sharing for quite some time to come, so it's hard to quantify what that might actually come to. I don't think proxy server maintenance comes to a lot in real dollars, but you're right that there are presumably savings in the overall system that we don't always pay attention to. From the publishers' standpoint, I would think there might be significant savings from not having to deal with access controls or subscription & licensing departments -- but I don't know what share of a publishers costs those items represent.
Toggle Commented Oct 18, 2011 on The Economics of Open Access at T. Scott
The notion of true competition in OA publishing is very intriguing, particularly now that we have several entrants into the PLoS One space. Brand will still be important, but if there are several of these outlets which are perceived to be of roughly equal value, then surely price will start to be a factor. I've argued for some time that the notion of "collection" is increasingly anachronistic for what librarians are actually doing, regardless of whether we're talking about OA or toll-access. If OA is hastening this, however, and is a source of librarian anxiety, then wouldn't it make more sense for librarians to be opposed to OA rather than such enthusiastic champions? And for more on David's comment about calculating the PLoS margin take a look at the comment thread to the Scholarly Kitchen post I reference above. Whether it is reasonable or not to include the grants in determining the revenue base is not something that I feel quite qualified to have an opinion on. The more important point, it seems to me, is that PLoS (and BMC) seem to have clearly demonstrated how an author-side OA publishing operation can be profitable. That being the case, we can expect more and more (successful) experimentation on the part of the commercial houses. Whether this will result in a reduction of the margins and a reduction in subscription prices remains to be seen.
Toggle Commented Oct 17, 2011 on The Economics of Open Access at T. Scott
David Rosenthal writes: "PLoS achieved a 20% margin in 2010, and if the trends continue, could conceiveably surpass Elsevier's margin for 2011." This is a seriously misleading assertion. The 20% number treats foundation grants as income. In 2010 PLoS had expenses of $12.2M and operating income excluding grants of $13M, for an operating margin of 6%. In addition they got $2.1M in grants. They presumably applied for these grants in 2009, when their operating margin was -10%. Had they been running a 20% operating margin, they would not have got the grants. [Source: page 11].
Toggle Commented Oct 15, 2011 on The Economics of Open Access at T. Scott
So far over a dozen articles have been suggested -- I'm very pleased with the response. I'm going to send a note to various other discussion lists, but please feel free to spread the word yourself. We'll keep taking suggestions until April 2012. Continue reading
Posted Oct 11, 2011 at 100 Years of JMLA / BMLA
Nominate your favorite article – help celebrate the JMLA’s 100th birthday! 2012 marks the 100th year of publication for the BMLA/JMLA. To mark this major milestone, we will be publishing a special supplementary issue in October 2012, featuring reprints of the important articles we have published. We invite all MLA... Continue reading
Posted Oct 5, 2011 at 100 Years of JMLA / BMLA
I've always objected to the notion of "work-life balance" because of the superficial duality implied. I am a library director 24 hours a day. I am an amateur musician 24 hours a day. I am a doting grandfather 24 hours a day. Etc., etc. The challenge is to make sure that you make time to properly feed all of the aspects of yourself. Putting it in terms of "work-life" is just too simplistic.
Toggle Commented Jun 23, 2011 on Work and Life at PVLD Director's Blog