JSTOR Watch
For years, we've watched academia acclimate to the Internet, version 1.0, with JStor articles, podcasts and course Web sites. Mostly, these are conveniences that improve education for those already inside the academic cloister. But Web 2.0 is all about universality, about content that reaches groups well beyond its intended audience, about the unpredictable ways that items online link people together. Maha Atal 08
Barnacle of Higher Education
Why infuckingdeed.com:Librarians Protest Science's Departure From JSTOR, Fearing a Trend
When the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced in late July that it would pull its flagship journal, Science, from JSTOR, the popular, nonprofit digital archive of scholarly publications, the association cast its decision as a natural evolution.
According to the announcement, the AAAS, as the association is known, was merely joining "an increasing number" of large scientific-society journals that were "digitizing and controlling their own content."
Why, then, are so many librarians kicking up a ruckus about it?
To continue reading this premium article, you must have a Chronicle account AND a subscription or an online pass.
Subscriptions start at $40; Web passes for under $10.
WHEN WE CONSIDER the responsibility of intellectuals, our basic concern must be their role in the creation and analysis of ideology. Chomsky via Golby.
Labels: dark vectors of dark knowledge, gathering darkness of all USian culture, jstor, jstor syndrome, open access, university education in USiA today
posted by Tom Matrullo at Thursday, October 11, 2007
2 Comments:
...of course, one can't click through to the Chronicle of Higher Education article without an account :-P
Irony aside, there is no appreciable difference between AAAS and JSTOR for those of us with out institutional sponsorship. Moving Science out of one silo and into another is just rearranging the landscape in the locked garden.
What will it take, on some far off day, for these institutional guardians to realize they have (1) defeated the only benificent purpose they have on earth, and (2) blandly closed off a readership more vast than anything they could ever imagine? Even the NYTimes figured out that pay per view is, in this ambience, the economic equivalent of solitary confinement.
Post a Comment
<< Home