Around the Web: Catastrophism fails angsty librarians, Open Accessapolooza and more

More like this

Joining a CHORUS, Publishers Offer the OSTP a Proactive, Modern, and Cost-Saving Public Access Solution Publishers Propose Public-Private Partnership to Support Access to Research CHORUS: hoping for re-enclosure CHORUS: It’s actually spelled C-A-B-A-L Scientific Publishers Aim To Get Ahead Of…
Yes, We Should Talk About the MLS On Big Name Librarians The Loon’s job Why am I getting my MLIS? Because I have to. So You Think You Want to Be a Librarian? The Adjunctification of Academic Librarianship Your candidate pools Fork the Academy (github as a model for scholarly communcation) Massive (…
This is some vacation catch-up... Is Algebra Necessary? Mathematical Illiteracy in the NYT There Are Many Ways to Improve High School Education: Dumbing It Down Is NOT One of Them Does mathematics have a place in higher education? Abandoning Algebra Is Not the Answer It’s Not the Algebra, It’s the…
Making headlines in libraryland is EBSCO's announcement of exclusive access to several popular periodicals in electronic form. (See also this reaction, which includes a partial list of the publications that will be exclusive to EBSCO.) Essentially, libraries who want their patrons to be able to…

A modest proposal....The open access model requires somebody to pay for the costs of publication.. Usually this ends up being the author, or their institution, or grantor. This is either a per article or per page fee.
One of the problem with citation counts and other bibliometrics is that any system upon which that much depends is going to be "gamed" in some form or another. So instead of charging authors by the page, why not charge them by the number of citations that have? This puts at least some "skin in the game" and encourages them to only cite articles that they feel are ACTUALLY relevant.