Book Collection,” Journal of Electronic Publishing 9, no. 2 (2006), http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/
3336451.0009.208; Brian Lavoie and Lorcan Dempsey, “Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially
In-Copyright Print Books in Library Collections,” D-Lib Magazine 15, no. 11/12 (2009),
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html.
11 Stephen G. Nichols and Abby Smith, The Evidence in Hand: Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in
Library Collections (Washington DC: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001),
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub103/contents.html.
12 Bernard F. Reilly Jr., Developing Print Repositories: Models for Shared Preservation and Access (Washington
DC: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003),
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub117/pub117.pdf; Brian E. C. Schottlaender, “You Say You
Want an Evolution…: The Emerging UC Libraries Shared Collection Concept,” Library Collections,
Acquisitions, and Technical Services 28, no. 1 (2004): 13–24; Lizanne Payne, Library Storage Facilities and
the Future of Print Collections in North America (Dublin OH: OCLC Programs and Research, 2007),
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-01.pdf; Constance Malpas, Shared Print
Policy Review Report (Dublin OH: OCLC Research, 2009), http://www.oclc.org/research/
publications/library/2009/2009-03.pdf.
13 Roger C. Schonfeld, JSTOR: A History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003):156–160; Roger C.
Schonfeld and Ross Housewright, What to Withdraw? Print Collections Management in the Wake of
Digitization (New York: Ithaka S+R, 2009): 9–11, http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/
what-to-withdraw.
14 Geoffrey Nunberg, “Google’s Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars,” Chronicle Review, August 31, 2009,
http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/. See also Paul Duguid, “Inheritance and
Loss? A Brief Survey of Google Books,” First Monday 12, no. 8 (2007), http://firstmonday.org/
htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1972/1847; Grafton 2007, 52–53; and Robert
Darnton, “The Library in the New Age,” New York Review of Books, June 12, 2008: 72–80.
15 Ghostlier Demarcations: Large-Scale Digitization Projects and Their Utility for Contemporary Humanities
Scholarship (Washington DC: Council on Library and Information Resources, forthcoming in 2010).
16 Proposed Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild Inc., Association of American Publishers Inc., et al. v.
Google Inc., case no. 05 CV 8136-JES, US District Court, Southern District of New York, filed Oct. 28,
2008: 11–12, 79–83, http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement.
17 Joseph Esposito, “The Processed Book,” First Monday 8, no. 3 (March 2003),
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1038/959; Clifford A.
Lynch, “Open Computation: Beyond Human-Reader-Centric Views of Scholarly Literatures,” in Neil
Jacobs, ed., Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical, and Economic Aspects (Oxford: Chandos Publishing,
2006): 185–193, http://www.cni.org/staff/cliffpubs//OpenComputation.pdf. Also see for example,
Gregory Crane, “What Do You Do With A Million Books?” D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 3 (2006),
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march06/crane/03crane.html.
18 See for example, Tanya Clement et al., “How Not to Read a Million Books,” paper presented at the
Seminar on the History of the Book, Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, March 5, 2009,
http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/hownot2read.rutgers.html; Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, “TEI
Analytics: Converting Documents into a TEI Format for Cross-Collection Text Analysis,” Literary and
Linguistic Computing 24, no. 2 (2009): 187–192; see also Gregory Crane et al., “Classics in the Million
Book Library,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 3, no. 1 (2009), http://www.digitalhumanities.org/
dhq/vol/3/1/000034.html.
19 See for example, Daniel Traister, “Is There a Future for Special Collections? And Should There Be?”
RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 1 (2000): 70–72; Koda 2008, 479–480;
Diane Zorich et al., Beyond the Silos of the LAMs: Collaboration Among Libraries, Archives, and Museums
(Dublin OH: OCLC Programs and Research, 2008),
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2008-05.pdf.
20 For an exception, see Peter Hirtle, “Removing All Restrictions: Cornell’s New Policy on Use of Public
Domain Reproductions,” Research Library Issues, no. 266 (Oct. 2009): 1–6,
http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/rli/archive/rli266.shtml.
21 Carol Mandel, “Hidden Collections: The Elephant in the Closet,” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books,
Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 5 (Fall 2004): 106.
22 Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival
Processing,” American Archivist 68, no. 2 (2005): 208–263.
23 Whittaker 2006, 107.
24 Francis X. Blouin Jr. and William Rosenberg, Processing the Past: Contesting Authority in History and the
Archives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming in 2010).
25 Crane 2006, 2009; Christopher Blackwell and Gregory Crane, “Conclusion: Cyberinfrastructure, the
Scaife Digital Library and Classics in the Digital Age,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 3, no. 1 (2009),
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/003/1/000035.html.
26 George Bernard Shaw, “The Man of Destiny,” in Plays: Pleasant and Unpleasant: The Second Volume
Containing the Four Pleasant Plays (Chicago: Herbert S. Stone and Co., 1905): 311.
27 Williams 2009, 8.
RLI 267
41
The Changing Role of Special Collections in Scholarly Communications
(
C O N T I N U E D
)
DECEMBER 2009 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC
Previous Page Next Page