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

More like this

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 (…
What makes one a librarian? Goodbye, Faculty Status Library employees protest changed title: New designation for incoming employee provokes heated debate why should librarians learn python? (a better answer) Why Not Grow Coders from the inside of Libraries? Alt-Ac: Breathing Life into Libraries or…
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…
OA and the UK Humanities & Social Sciences: Wrong risks and missed opportunities One Size Fits All?: Social Science and Open Access Statement on position in relation to open access(Institute of Historical Research) The open access journal as a disruptive innovation Openness, value, and…

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.