Re: Statement from Sage (Bad research) Peter Picerno 30 Jul 2002 20:34 UTC
Many thanks to Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Lester for pointing out the fallacies of using twenty- and thirty-year old research to argue a case which has changed radically in the last ten years. The argument "Referees are not provided with libraries that are comprehensive enough that they can actually check unfamiliar sources and verify the claims on which a particular piece of research is based ..." particularly caught my attention because it makes no sense at all in these days of lightening-swift ILL and document delivery (not to mention e-publishing). If a referee doesn't know about ILL and Document Delivery, then one wonders if they should be refereeing another author's work at all. Besides, the quoted statment implies that the purpose of libraries is to acquire 'unafamiliar sources' so that the occasional referee can wander in and check a reference. If that, indeed, is their purpose, I'm afraid that university administrations would be quite justified in slashing budgets and personnel. Rather than being a morgue for little-used and little-demanded information, most academic libraries strive to be a lively place where the majority of its users information needs are met. Cheers, Peter V. Picerno -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Dan Lester Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:58 PM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Statement from Sage (Bad research) Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 11:31:01 AM, you wrote: FR> So the "myth" of "excessive" publication (undefined term) has "no FR> factual basis, of course"? How could it, since it's a subjective FR> judgment? Trying to discuss "excessive publication" is like trying to discuss "excessive number of messages" on a list such as this. I'm sure there are some who've left this list because of "too much traffic" while others wish there were more messages. I manage one list on which members complain if there are more than two messages a day. Yet another gets complaints if there are under 100, and there are usually more like 300. Who's to say? FR> Pace Mr Price, who died in 1983 (and whose book detailed the FR> "exponential" --his term-- growth in scientific publication, despite FR> what he may have said about individual productivity), more modern FR> figures constantly repeat the average of between one or two FR> peer-reviewed scientific papers per year per researcher across many FR> scientific disciplines. Thanks for confirming my belief that Mr. Price was long gone. 20 year old data wouldn't hold up in most scientific disciplines, and it certainly doesn't here. FR> It's also well established FR> that senior researchers have smaller output than junior researchers, FR> that junior researchers suffer from angst about the pressure to publish FR> to even be admitted into the guild, and that quite often junior FR> researchers do the major work on papers bearing a senior researcher's FR> name (usually, along with their own). Check editorials and opinion FR> pieces in The Scientist, e.g., S. Perkowitz, Jan. 1993. This is true in librarianship as well. FR> What is the library's mission? For publishers and their advocates, FR> including yourself, unfortunately, it boils down to one objective: "to FR> get more money and to spend its money for as many of our products as possible;" FR> the only qualitative measure you recognize is acquisitions spending, and FR> any attempt of the library to get off that treadmill meets with your FR> withering scorn. I'd say "attempted withering scorn", as I've yet to feel scorned by the tripe that has been passed on to this list. Yes, libraries want larger budgets. Yes, the administrators of the universities often overlook library needs, despite the best efforts of the librarians and faculty to make those needs known. This is all compounded these days by the idea that "all of the information in the world is free on the internet". However, there has never been a time in recorded history when any library had all the money it wanted, had all of the materials it wanted, and wasn't seeking more support. The old "six percent rule", which I learned in library school in 1964, was fine then. It would be heavenly now. However, that era is gone, and I don't think that any of us are likely to see that kind of funding again. Yes, we should try to improve funding, but harkening back to the olden days isn't what is going to convince administrators of our needs. dan -- Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA www.riverofdata.com www.gailndan.com Stop Global Whining!