ClaireMacomson_A1

I chose to look at changes in scholarly communication within the library and information science discipline. Though I imagine that all disciplines underwent the same changes, if not at the same time, then eventually. I looked at a few articles available over the last few decades through UNC’s electronic catalogue. As seen today, much of formal and informal scholarly communication is through electronic means whereas it was once primarily through written and print-on-paper methods.

Initially I looked for articles that were written prior to 1990 to see what the previous scholarly communication standards were. I was able to find an article outlining the 1975 National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication which addressed on-going concerns about libraries’ abilities to afford formal scholarly communication (Martin & Martin, 1980). It seems that one of the motivators in moving away from print-on-paper methods was financial. I was not able to find the actual document itself through UNC electronic catalogue. I was able to confirm that several non-technological recommendations in the report did not come to pass but given the noticeable bias in the article it was not a very good source for information (Abel, 1999).

Another early article I was able to locate within the UNC catalogue is from the Journal of Information Science issue 2 of volume 7, printed in 1983. It details a workshop at City University in London called “Scholarly Communication in transition.” The author explains in the introduction that “Scholarly communication is 'in transition' because, whilst the formal communication of research is still primarily dependent on print-on-paper, forms of communication using information technology are taking off rapidly (Meadows, p.81). The author was addressing email and other electronic communication methods.

The final article addresses perceived myths of transformative agreements, “contracts between institutions and publishers intended to transform the current, primarily subscription-based, journal publishing model to a fully open access (OA) model.” The article argues that these agreements will not lead to more competitive pricing or more transparent production costs. Nor will it all libraries better negotiating power with publishers (Farley, 2021). In some way, publication costs continue to remain a major factor in scholarly communication within the library and information science field. I am sure this is true of all academic fields as well. Whether or not open access is the future of scholarly communication, the fact that articles are being written about it is important to note.

References

Abel, R. (1999). The National Enquiry Into Scholarly Communication—Twenty years after. Publishing Research Quarterly, 15(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-999-0001-7

Farley, A., Langham-Putrow, A., Shook, E., Sterman, L., & Wacha, M. (2021). Transformative agreements: Six myths, busted: Lessons learned. College & Research Libraries News, 82(7), 298. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.7.298

Martin, M. S., & Martin, N. P. (1980). THE STATE OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN THE UNITED STATES: THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRY. The Journal of General Education, 31(4), 244–254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27796779

Meadows, J. (1983). Scholarly communication in transition. Journal of Information Science, 7(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158300700205

I have neither given nor received aid while working on this assignment. I have completed the graded portion BEFORE looking at anyone else's work on this assignment. - Claire Macomson