Abby Clobridge, “You Say You Want a Revolution? – Open Access on the March,” Online Searcher

Pull quote: “Conversations about open access are no longer about whether it is a good idea; rather, the focus is on best practices, sustainability, and maximizing OA’s impact. With this shift in conversation, it is imperative that information professionals are ready to support open access and all it entails.”

Abby Clobridge, “You Say You Want a Revolution? – Open Access on the March,” Online Searcher

Laura Krier, “What’s Wrong with MARC? (NISO BIBFRAME Roadmap Meeting, Part 2),” Words for Nerds

Pull quote: “Sometimes I think cataloging is the third rail of library discussions, but I’m going jump right on it: It is not the library’s responsibility to employ catalogers. It is the library’s responsibility to make our resources easy for our users to find, and if we can do that faster and cheaper, we have an obligation to do so.”

Laura Krier, “What’s Wrong with MARC? (NISO BIBFRAME Roadmap Meeting, Part 2),” Words for Nerds

Kevin Smith, “Let Me Count the Ways,” Peer to Peer Review

Pull quote: “But three recent events and publications have me made more deeply aware of something I think scholarly authors are also beginning to discover—that the traditional commercial publishing model is actively harmful to the interests of good scholarship. Not just failing to keep up with changing conditions, but lagging behind in ways that threaten the quality and integrity of the scholarly enterprise itself.”

Kevin Smith, “Let Me Count the Ways,” Peer to Peer Review

danah boyd, “why I’m quitting Mendeley (and why my employer has nothing to do with it),” apophenia

Pull quote: “I cannot say the same thing for Elsevier. As most academics and many knowledge activists know, Elsevier has engaged in some pretty evil maneuvers. Elsevier published fake journals until it got caught. Its parent company was involved in the arms trade until it got caught. Elsevier played an unrepentant and significant role in advancing SOPA/PIPA/RWA and continues to lobby on issues that undermine scholarship. Elsevier currently actively screws over academic libraries and scholars through its bundling practices. There is no sign that the future of Elsevier is pro-researchers. There is zero indicator that Mendeley’s acquisition is anything other an attempt to placate the academics who are refusing to do free labor for Elsevier (editorial boards, reviewers, academics). There’s no attempt at penance, no apology, not even a promise of a future direction. Just an acquisition of a beloved company as though that makes up for all of the ways in which Elsevier has in the past _and continues to_ screw over scholars.”

danah boyd, “why I’m quitting Mendeley (and why my employer has nothing to do with it),” apophenia

Mike Eisen, “Door-to-door subscription scams: the dark side of The New York Times,” it is NOT junk

Pull quote” And yes, a lot of these suspect journals charge authors for publishing their works, just like open access journals like PLoS do. But suggesting, as the article does, that scam conferences/journals exist because of the rise of open access publishing is ridiculous. It’s the logical equivalent of blaming newspapers like the NYT for people who go door-to-door selling fake magazine subscriptions.”

Mike Eisen, “Door-to-door subscription scams: the dark side of The New York Times,” it is NOT junk

Library Loon, “The Mendeley endgame,” Gavia Libraria

Pull quote: “Elsevier will grab behavior data while the grabbing’s good, analyze it, make business decisions from it, and then drop all pretense of caring. They will let Mendeley fade, its loyal userbase straggling away, its dedicated developers moving on (within Elsevier or outside it).”

Library Loon, “The Mendeley endgame,” Gavia Libraria