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