Was the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine incident an isolated case, or is it the first of several Elsevier journals that only appear to be legit?

Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, issued a statement today that suggests that a division of the company may have created the bogus journal without the knowledge of the top levels of the company:

It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.

We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was an isolated practice from a past period in time. It does not reflect the way we operate today. The individuals involved in the project have long since left the company. I have affirmed our business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the proper use of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does not happen again.

Note that this statement uses the phrase “published a series of sponsored article compilation publications”.  Some sleuthing by Jonathan Rochkind and Bill Hooker indicates that Excerpta Medica, a subsidiary of Elsevier, might have published quite a few of these sponsored-yet-unacknowledged journals.

My own poking around Excerpta Medica’s website with Google has produced an interesting Pdf titled Best practices for managing publications through a drug’s lifecycle and balancing scientific rigour and credibility with commercial goals.  The document is a summary of a presentation given at by Hester Kuipers, who at the time was Program Director, Medical Communications for Exerpta Medica.  Here is a brief quote:

Scientific publications in peer-reviewed medical journals are a valuable and credible vehicle to support a medical marketing strategy. Though part of most marketing plans, publications are not a promotional activity, but rather a medical one. The relationship between scientific publications and marketing messages can best be described as the first supporting the second rather than the second driving the first.

The presentation makes it clear that the research must have primacy over the promotion; hopefully the “series of sponsored article compilation publications” turns out to be the exception and not the rule for Exerpta Medica.  Elsevier should investigate this thoroughly and publicly acknowledge the extent of the deception; the credibility of each and every one of their peer-reviewed journals is at stake.

some links found via ResourceShelf and through postings on the Cooperative Information Resources Managemnt (CIRM) list

A library district in suburban Chicago (Schaumberg, Illinois) is implementing rules governing library user’s odor and library sleeping habits, but is stressing that the rules are not aimed at homeless users of the library.

This is a little hard to believe, as they also stress that they aren’t planning to invoke the rule against patrons who fall asleep while reading, but those who go into the library with the intention of sleeping.

A little background:  I started my library career in the Brookfield (IL) Public Library, and during the winter months, we had several homeless patrons who spent many hours each day in the library.  Odors?  Definitely.  One person in particular was so strong that I had to hold my breath whenever I was within 5 feet of him.  Just writing this is evoking the exact memory of the smell.

Initially, I didn’t understand why they were allowed.  I am sure that many of our patrons left the library sooner, and perhaps didn’t return as often during the winter months.  We definitely received complaints.  But the director, someone who I have grown to respect more and more over the years, insisted on allowing them a safe haven during the freezing temperatures.

My suggested solution?  Find a way to get people the services they need.  Resources for the homeless have improved, and everyone in need should avail themselves of those resources.  If those resources aren’t available, or even if the people who need them won’t use them, do not deny to them what may be their one safe shelter.  I occasionally wonder about the people I encountered as a page, and hope that their lives improved; but even if they didn’t, I feel happy that the library I remember so fondly also served as a safe place for them.

article found via LISNews

Today is the second annual celebration of Document Freedom Day!

So why are open document formats important?  What happens when someone sends you a document created with Microsoft Word 2007, and saved with the default file format?  You get a file with a .docx extension, and you have to find some way to convert it or obtain it in another format.

What happens when you encounter a file from a program you used 10 years ago, when the company is out of business, and you don’t know anyone who still uses it?  This can be more challenging.

The purpose of open document formats is to ensure that the information about how the document was saved is available for any person/company to utilize.  Importers for different programs and standalone converters can be created; the files themselves can sometimes be opened using simpler means.

The most forward-thinking and useful set of open document formats are those from the OASIS project.  They are in use in several programs, but the highest profile of these is OpenOffice.org.  The Open Document Format has proven to be very robust, and stores information in a manner that generally makes them much smaller in size than the Microsoft Office pre-2007 formats (I average about 10% on reports that I generate on a regular basis… that means 10% of the file size, not merely a 10% reduction!).

I like to do this demonstration:  make a copy of a .odt (Open Document Text) file, then change the extension to .zip.  Open the zipped file and start looking around.  Any graphics embedded within the file are saved in a separate folder.  You will find the raw text of the file in files.  All in all, this is a very open way to store and retrieve information from files that you may not be able to open otherwise (plus it is a great way to extract the graphic files).

What can you do to improve things?  Get OpenOffice (or try Go-oo, which bundles some great plugins and configuration settings) and try it out.  It is different from Microsoft Office, but once you are familiar with the menu placements, you can do some wonderful things.

What else?  If you are a Microsoft Office user, you can download and install the converters for ODF files.

Anything else?  Yes… think about what your needs may be for 5, 10, 20 years down the road, and strive to use document formats that will fill those needs effectively.  My recommendation lies with open formats rather than closed.

Added later:  Thanks to Rose Guerrieri, Director of the Kent State University Trumbull Campus Library, for her reminder via the Ohiolink list!

The cover story for the October issue of Library Journal is titled What We Need.  It centers on the results of a survey of Movers & Shakers, the annual group of people recognized by Library Journal for innovation and leadership.  It contains a lot of great information, and even a few surprises.

Most of all, if you are in a job situation where people are not encouraged or rewarded for innovation, don’t feel that you are isolated and alone.  Many of those surveyed come from similar circumstances.  What emerges from this article is not so much the people who excel because of a supporting environment and management, but in spite of it.  Most received more support and encouragement from their peers at work than from their supervisors.

What surprised me so much that I had to put down the article and simply let it sink in was the following passage:

Nearly half of all respondents (48.6%) stated that their organization did not celebrate their being named as an LJ Mover. Many of the total respondents commented that internal recognition was limited to a librarywide email from the director or a brief comment at a staff meeting.

Think about that.  Library Journal picks about 50 people each year to recognize their enthusiasm and contributions to libraries.  Nearly half of their workplaces didn’t think this recognition important enough to celebrate.  My first thought was about the unhealthy workplaces; however, that large of a number signifies to me a sickness in the profession.  Consider the following:

Some respondents noted that the recognition from outside of the library actually hurt their work life. When asked if and how their being named a Mover was celebrated, one respondent answered “not at all, created a lot of problems.” Another noted “friends and colleagues celebrated; administration ignored the award.”

These are the cream of the crop!  How many potential Movers & Shakers (and I am not limiting this to those officially recognized as such) have been demoralized over the years by this environment?  More importantly:  what can we do about this?

Simply put:  celebrate innovation, wherever it may come from.  Support your coworkers, whatever their “level” or title, when they succeed at something new.  Support them even more when they fail… the attempt is of the utmost importance.

I feel strongly for these people when I hear these stories, because I have experienced those environments.  I know people who are still existing in situations that rob most people of their enthusiasm for libraries. I can tell stories, but often do not because of the pain and frustration the memories invoke.  Not only careers but lives can and do get ruined.

What you can do is this:  Take heart, and keep on striving to do everything you can to learn, and apply what you learn.  Try… Fail… Try again.  Support each other, because sometimes all you have is each other.

Just keep at it.

This post by The Limnal Librarian is, simply put, a must for everyone to read and understand (even if you don’t agree).

I worked in a pharmacy as a technician for 8 years. There were great, and not so great, times to be had, and I learned a lot (especially about working with and for people). One of those lessons was that the person walking up to the counter didn’t know that I wasn’t a pharmacist and didn’t care that I wasn’t a pharmacist; they wanted their question answered rightly or their medication filled properly.

Libraries are the same. We are all librarians. Any other unifying name or term to define those of us who work there is an attempt at futility: people see us all as librarians. This is not to take anything away from the MLS degree; I have seen the power that a good library program gives to a person inclined to help others find and use information… nothing can replace that (only reduce it). There is a very good reason why the MLS should be required for library administrators, and that it should be a generous part of any well-sized library’s staffing.

We all, however, represent the same entity to the patron. Nobody, in any position, should hesitate to say “let me get someone who can help you with that particular question”. That someone might be the high school page who you know to be a fan of graphic novels; or the support staff who knits as a hobby, or the director who’s husband has the same medical condition (though the patron never need know if the director doesn’t want them to).

The linked essay should be read, understood, printed out, posted, and perhaps even left on the desks of those needing the reminder most.

Tapping into your staff’s knowledge doesn’t diminish anyone’s position; only ignoring it does.

found via LISNews

(added later) — it may be that part of the original post that this post was a response to (I don’t know, it was deleted) involved Dean Giustini being upset that Tim Spaulding of LibraryThing won a Library Journal’s Movers and Shakers award this year.  If so, there is an added reason to strongly respond:  we are a profession that is seeking it’s purpose in an era in which much of our traditional purpose may be shifting to the internet (i.e. instant reference and access to information resources).  Anyone who can help to merge the two and provide a combined path forward is worthy of recognition; they needn’t be part of the traditional library family to do so.

The Diary of Saad Eskander, Director of the Iraqi National Library and Archive is available via the British Library website.  In the diary, Dr. Eskander details the day-to-day challenges faced by the library staff as they attempt to do their work, and live their lives, in what has to be one of the most challenging environments for librarianship.

found on MetaFilter

Peter Brantley is the Director of Digital Library Technologies for the California Digital Library (note that the blog that I reference has a different title, but I suspect that they are combining his current employer and a previous title, based on this page — though I could be mistaken, as well).

His recent blog post, Google and the Books, lamented the decision-making process that led to the Google Library Project deal with the UC libraries. He used a later post, Google Books: A Reprise with Clarity, to clarify his position, and set the record straight as to how he views Google.

Taken together, they are very interesting reading, and could stand as a guide for any library’s movement into digital partnerships.

from Open Access News