ACRL and its scholarly communication committee invite you to contribute your public comment here about the overall paper and thank you in advance for extending this important discussion. Just click + above and type away.
Scholarly Communications Education
The major theme that appeared to be missing in the report was Scholarly Communications Education, the topic of a recent ARL SPEC Kit <http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/spec299web.pdf>. Just as there has been a rich vein of research into information literacy instruction and its impact on student behaviors, it seems there should be an equally rich vein on questions related to the efficacy of faculty development programs and scholarly communications education programs aimed at graduate students. What are best practices for SCE, major topics for discussion? What impact does SCE have on the practices of established scholars, on junior scholars, on emergent scholars? What is the difference between SCE designed and delivered by librarians vs. that designed and delivered collaboratively with disciplinary leaders?
There are certainly aspects of this theme in the report, esp. as regards copyright education, but it strikes me as significant enough to warrant top-level identification as a research area.
general comments from ACLS President
Thank you for calling this effective statement to my attention. I particularly want to commend the basic format of the report as an invitation to research. Discussions of the changing realm of scholarly communication are too often beset with a either the rhetoric of “crisis” or breathless enthusiasm for a wholly new order. ACRL’s report maintains a balanced tone while still specifying real changes. It won’t surprise you that I also agree with the report’s stress on the concept of cyberinsfrastructure and on heightened understanding of new patterns of scholarly work.
I hope the report is widely read and that it provokes considerable discussion and research.
Pauline Yu, President, American Council of Learned Socieities