That doesn't surprise me. They're a very weird organisation - with an aging membership and a bizarre legacy. Having said that, they were good to me as an archaeology student and even funded some research travel. I haven't been a member for a few years now but the new president was a lecturer of mine.
Maybe I'll see if I can meet him and wave the Open Access flag! *twirls villainous moustache* On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:12 AM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: > According to its website, The Prehistoric Society, which has never made > its publications available open access except for abstracts, has recently > switched from publishing its own proceedings, to Cambridge University Press > , [ > http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/about/news/switch_to_cup_as_publisher/] > , which sells an annual subscription for $175 to libraries, and access to > an individual article for $30. (Individual membership, which includes a > subscription, is £ 35/year . (It does make its newsletter freely > available, at [http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/publications/past/]; > its "Research papers" are also paid access only. > > One could call it hypocrisy, except for the problem of how, except for > memberships and subscriptions, are they to get the money to publish? > Probably, like most such societies, most of the members are members > primarily in order to get the Proceedings. > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrea Zanni <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I can't agree more with Liam here. >> I'm not an expert in museums, but I know libraries. >> When I worked at the university of Bologna, I spoke with hundreds of >> researchers, Phd students, professors regarding Open Access. >> As readers, they were completely in favour. >> But they were always mumbling and thinking otherwise when they, as >> authors, were asked to provide their writings/articles in open access. >> >> The good part of this story is: this is how closed access look like. >> We should emphasize that. >> >> Aubrey >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Of course I think that researchers should have free access to the >>> collections as a core service of a public cultural collection. That's their >>> raison d'etre. It should go without saying. >>> But I can't help also feeling that there is a two-class system in place, >>> and all of a sudden these researchers have seen what it's like to be in the >>> non-favoured-class... >>> >>> In the wiki-verse, and indeed any online user of public cultural >>> collections, we're very very used to being told that our access requests >>> will incur a fee (e.g. to get access high-resolution copy of an already >>> digitised public-domain image) - even when requests to access the same >>> object in-person would be considered a free service. >>> >>> Obviously, operating a physical institution that accommodates access to >>> the collection (e.g. a reading-room in a research-library with all the >>> lights, heating, security, staffing...) is an expensive service to operate, >>> but it is considered an important service to provide for free to the >>> public. Yet, the much cheaper operating cost of providing a digital access >>> service (an online database) is considered to be a different class of >>> access-request. Online access-requests are frequently, not always, >>> considered an opportunity for the institution to make money, whereas >>> physical access requests are considered core-business. I think that this is >>> underpinned by a culture that makes a value-judgement about what is the >>> "right" kind of access. >>> >>> So now the UK Prehistoric Society would like the digital open-access >>> community to stand with them to fight for the right to have free access to >>> research collections - and I agree. But, would the UK Prehistoric Society >>> stand with the digital open-access community in our fight to have digital >>> usage considered no longer be considered a "second-class citizen"? >>> >>> I think there is an interesting parallel with 1968 Ford motor company >>> strikes in the UK >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968 >>> (see also the 2010 film "made in Dagenham"). >>> At the time, the women working for Ford were paid less for an equivalent >>> level of skilled work. The women had supported the men's previous >>> unionised-action for better work-conditions, but when they asked for the >>> Union's support in their equal-pay fight, the Union wasn't interested. The >>> (male) union-leaders like having the female employees support for their own >>> claims but didn't consider the women's claims to be serious/important - and >>> feared that if the women were paid the same amount as the men, then the >>> company would fire some of the men to keep costs down. A two-class >>> system... >>> Eventually the right to equal-pay-for-equal-work became the law and the >>> world didn't end... >>> >>> So, I would like the UK Prehistoric Society researchers to know I >>> support their right to free-access to undertake their research in the >>> public collections of the UK. But, would they support us in return? >>> >>> -Liam >>> >>> wittylama.com >>> Peace, love & metadata >>> >>> On 20 March 2015 at 21:38, Pat Hadley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> There's been a recent bit of coverage in the UK over the issue of >>>> museums charging researchers for collection access. >>>> >>>> The strongest arguments for free and open access have come from the >>>> Prehistoric Society and can be seen on the Museum's Association Website >>>> <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17032015-museums-criticised-for-charging-researchers-for-access> >>>> . >>>> >>>> At York Museums Trust (hosts of my project) they do not charge >>>> researchers and have recently begun insisting that visiting researchers >>>> openly licence any photographs they take of collections items and >>>> encouraging them to pursue open access publishing of the research output >>>> (not always possible). >>>> >>>> I was wondering whether the GLAMwiki movement might like to speak on >>>> the issue and encourage GLAMs with which we are working to consider this >>>> part of their openness strategy. >>>> >>>> Research is one of the key ways in which collections are enriched. I >>>> for one am fed up with finding obscure notes on collection databases >>>> implying the existence of research done in the last decade which is now >>>> invisible online and/or has no paper-trail at the museum. >>>> >>>> What do people think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Pat >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pat Hadley >>>> Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire >>>> pathadley.net >>>> @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GLAM mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GLAM mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GLAM mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam >> >> > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > _______________________________________________ > GLAM mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam > > -- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley>
_______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
