Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Plea for help from Horowhenua Library Trust
Horowhenua Library Trust is the birth place of Koha and the longest serving member of the Koha community. Back in 1999 when we were working on Koha, the idea that 12 years later we would be having to write an email like this never crossed our minds. It is with tremendous sadness that we must write this plea for help to you, the other members of the Koha community.
The situation we find ourselves in, is that after over a year of battling against it, PTFS/Liblime have managed to have their application for a Trademark on Koha in New Zealand accepted. We now have 3 months to object, but to do so involves lawyers and money. We are a small semi rural Library in New Zealand and have no cash spare in our operational budget to afford this, but we do feel it is something we must fight.
[Thanks to Brett for the link!]
Unaired Apple ad from 1997
Over at Attempting Elegance, Jenica Rogers is "Feeling Pointy":
"I am, professionally and personally, livid; I do not appreciate condescension, eradication of librarians’ professional expertise, or sidestepping of questions that are completely valid in a consumer-seller relationship in which a carefully delineated accreditation relationship is also involved. Our vendors seem to think that going straight to the faculty is going to benefit them, but I don’t understand their logic in sidestepping librarians. We’re the ones with the budgets. We’re the ones they have to work with. Yes, our faculty are influential, key stakeholders and partners, and are the source of our research agenda and teaching and learning needs, but still: How is undermining and alienating the librarian middleman going to help business?
Anger and bewilderment aside, I’m caught between the proverbial rock and hard place — I must support the faculty and students who rely on the research materials published by the ACS. But I must also strive to manage the budgets, resources
Open Source ILS Continues to Expand
The movement toward open source library automation continues. Recent months have seen many announcements of libraries selecting both Koha and Evergreen to replace proprietary systems. Keeping in mind that proprietary ILS products continue to dominate, both in new selections and in the overall base of installed systems, open source library automation has gained a strong footing in the industry and has become a routine option for most types of libraries.
Who Will Referee the Referee? — The ACS As Publisher and “Approver”
"How big a deal is this? The conflict of interest is blatant in the case of Chemical Abstracts and Journal of Chemical Education, and it is somewhat subtler in regard to the “Highly Recommended” journal list, 63% of which is comprised of ACS titles. But in both cases the conflict is real, and seems to have gone largely (though not entirely) without public comment up until now. It may be that ACS is handling these conflicts honorably, but how can we know for certain? At the very least, this issue seems to bear more and wider discussion."
"Now I have no objection to American Renaissance publishing their magazine or website. That is all obviously protected by the First Amendment, and while I dislike what they publish, I wouldn’t suggest that they be stopped from publishing it. But, like my friends who wonder just what it means to their idea of who I am that I now like MMA, I am re-examining my idea of what EBSCO Academic Search Complete is."
New OverDrive DRM terms: "This message will self-destruct"
"This goes a step worse so that each digital "copy" effectively self-destructs after a set number of reads in your system or consortium. That is to say, if you wanted to help blunt the crushing demand for a popular title, this would only help you slightly, if at all. And only one user at a time. And only if your users are faster than the rest of the consortium. After that you (and the rest of your consortium) are straight out of luck. Guess you should have bought more print copies?"
Shifting Sands: Science Researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with Implications for Library Collections Budgets , Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Fall 2010
Authors: Christy Hightower, Christy Caldwell
A study done by two librarians named Christy at UC Santa Cruz in Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship. Interesting implications for content budgets and publishers...
Science researchers at the University of California Santa Cruz were surveyed about their article database use and preferences in order to inform collection budget choices. Web of Science was the single most used database, selected by 41.6%. Statistically there was no difference between PubMed (21.5%) and Google Scholar (18.7%) as the second most popular database. 83% of those surveyed had used Google Scholar and an additional 13% had not used it but would like to try it. Very few databases account for the most use, and subject-specific databases are used less than big multidisciplinary databases (PubMed is the exception). While Google Scholar is favored for its ease of use and speed, those who prefer Web of Science feel more confident about the quality of their results than do those who prefer Google Scholar. When asked to choose between paying for article database access or paying for journal subscriptions, 66% of researchers chose to keep journal subscriptions, while 34% chose to keep article databases.
Ebrary, one of the pioneers in aggregating books and other print content online, has been acquired by ProQuest for an undisclosed price. Founded in 1999 by Christopher Warnock and Kevin Sayar, ebrary hosts more than 273,000 digital books, handbooks, reports, maps, journals and other content from about 500 publishers.