Given some of the extremely constructive criticism that I’ve recieved from people like Eli and Frederick, and many, many others via private email, I can very clearly see that there are issues with the paper as it stands. You’re correct in saying that it’s a “student paper” in that it was written under an extreme deadline, with various pressures beset on all sides. This is not to excuse the issues, simply to explain why I didn’t notice many of them. It was not until well after the completion of the paper that I was made fully aware of some flaws in various aspects of my reasoning, as well as things I just missed (like the JMLA being available on PubMed Central!).

My overall thesis, however, I still believe…that the ALA is not doing enough internally to make their own journals available in an open access manner. The copyright status of the articles in question was an attempt to find a link between strong copyright controls and a failure to see the contradictory nature of the ALA’s position. While I may have failed in the first, I hope that the bizarre popularity of the work has drawn attention to the second.

For a paper “published” on a personal blog, I think the most interesting part of the entire exercise at this point isn’t the paper at all…it’s the interest and commentary. This is feeding a secondary paper concerned with scholarly publication: where does “Perils” fall in the range of scholarly publication? Has the interest it has generated been because of its (admittedly) somewhat vitriolic tone? Is this commentary process a form of peer review? If so, what is the actual work…the paper? The paper with annotations from comments? A complete revision of “Perils?” All of this is incredibly interesting to me…much to think about.

I look forward to reading your comments in their entirety (both “not wholly positive” and “not wholly negative”).

I ended up writing a fairly long comment on chapter 5. It’s fair to say it’s not wholly positive (nor wholly negative). And then I pondered: “Is it fair to comment at such length on what is, after all, a student paper?”

Which is why I’ve spent some time this morning reviewing web mentions of the paper. Given the widespread publicity and your clear intent to see it discussed as widely as possible, I now feel comfortable in including the discussion. The issue will probably come out tonight, tomorrow night at the latest.

I’m guessing that if you’d called the right people at ALA, you’d learn what I believe to be true–and what’s supported by Page 59 of your paper: That is, that most divisional journals (certainly ITAL) do *not* require that authors sign over copyright to ALA, but offer either of two alternative licenses. Neither license prevents OAI deposit.

I’ll discuss this at greater length in Cites & Insights (which doesn’t have all that large an audience).

In any case, I fail to see how not talking to people could benefit your study one bit (unless you were concerned that doing so would deter you from reaching a preordained conclusion). Were you worried people would lie to you? Did you assume you knew what “members of the publishing industry” would say if you bothered to talk to them? If time was an issue for the Master’s paper, it certainly wasn’t for web publication.

Your rationale for the decision provided here is circuitous. You presumed an array of forms from certain publications within ALA should have copyright statements that are consistent, in your view, with position statements on open access from another group affiliated with ALA. When you found they did not match *your* assumptions of how they should appear, that somehow justified accusing ALA of hypocrisy without ever contacting anyone for comment or perspective? I guess this is what really mystifies me …

(this question is related to what i’ve been asking myself lately. i’m wondering (a) what am i going to do, besides working, after graduation? how can i take what i’m learning at work and contribute something to the world at large (or at least add to an intellectual debate).