Why is Science Behind a Paywall?

We are in the middle of the most dramatic and significant change in publishing since the proliferation of the printing press.  One area that has been resistant to change has been peer-reviewed scientific publishing.  Part of this resistance has been tradition (“if it ain’t broke…”), but some of it has been motivated by maintaining profits.

The exploration of new media technologies, and new ways to encourage the scientific process (and improve the error rate of research) is needed, and will benefit all involved.  Well, perhaps not the publishers that put profit ahead of everything else, but they have ample opportunity to examine their models and make the changes that will allow them to stay relevant.

Thanks to Jamie Ashworth for pointing out this article!

OpenDyslexic is a typeface that is specifically designed to be more usable for readers with, you guessed it, dyslexia.  The characters are weighted (the lines are made thicker) on the lower portion of the letter, reducing the tendency by the dyslectic reader to mentally rotate the letter.

OpenDyslexic is not the first font designed this way, but it is the first open source, free typeface developed developed for dyslexia.  It didn’t start out this way, and the story of how the murky legal landscape surrounding fonts and typefaces makes for an interesting read.

Here is a sample of the typeface:

As a thought experiment, let’s say we “win.” Professional and academic associations go open access, as much of physics has. The Directory of Open Access Journals is able to capture the far majority of these newly free works, and in turn these are snapped up by library catalogs thanks to link resolvers and discovery services. The same happens with the Directory of Open Access Books with regards to chapters in edited volumes.

But there’s a catch: DOAJ’s search function is not, to put it politely, robust. And there’s a larger problem behind search functionality thanks to incomplete metadata. Link resolvers and discovery services that pull from that search, culling that metadata, will lead to frustrated end users who cannot access and discover what they’re looking for.

Where BeerBrarian takes the argument is fairly close to where I would take it as well:  vendors and other access providers would compete for our business through ease of use, comprehensive access, and other service-oriented activities.

I am not a fan of the business model of “if we have exclusive control to a resource, they have to pay us what we can get away with”.    This creates disincentives for improvements (why spend money and resources to improve service if you don’t really need to?) and leads to monopolistic thinking, which is a long-term detriment in an information economy.

So what would an open access world be like?  We would have more resources like Google Scholar, and the costs for accessing information would be far less than they are today – more because of increased competition for services and fewer monopolies on information itself.

Innovative Interfaces (III) and SkyRiver, companies that had close ties, and who had joined together to sue OCLC in 2010, have merged.

Their first combined action?  They dropped their lawsuit against OCLC.

OCLC also issued a press release.

Although I understand fully that lawsuits are rarely about the big issues, I had hoped that this one would spark a discussion about OCLC’s role in the world of libraries.

Marshall Breeding’s excellent repository of information about the case:  SkyRiver vs. OCLC.

This is the way the lawsuit ends, not with a bang… but a merger….

The focus of the article is on the decisions being made by the New York Public Library.

These voter registration apps are meant for everyone, regardless of their political leanings or state of residence.  If your state has online registration available, you will be directed to the appropriate form.  If not, a pre-filled PDF will be generated for you to sign and submit.

There is no reason for any library not to add this to their site… the more people who vote, the greater the chance that their desires will be reflected in all levels of government.

One result of this is that you can now register to vote via the Libology Blog.

Note: Libology.com does not retain any of the information gathered by this application

(The registration app is no longer active, and has been removed from Libology.com)

This is a great step forward, as it allows a clear path for use and re-use of library records without fear of a lengthy and costly legal defense over ownership of records.

This solution is a compromise, in the opinion of this blogger, in that the data itself cannot be owned or licensed, nor could OCLC be able to claim to be the original creator of the data a great majority of the records.  It does, however, provides a path forward that allows everyone to benefit, and that should be why organizations such as OCLC exist in the first place.

found via Becky Yoose’s Twitter feed

Having used MediaWiki (the software that runs Wikipedia) extensively, I can vouch that there are usability issues that, if addressed, would greatly increase the ease of use, and the quality of editing, of the average user.  Much of what is proposed by NEW! makes sense, and the end result would be an increase in participation and use of Wikipedia, as well as a reduction in server load (as edits would need to be tested and re-done less often through a WYSIWYG editor).

Kudos to NEW! for taking the time and energy to propose these changes, and hopefully the developers at MediaWiki take these suggestions to heart.

found via Kai Li