My apologies to anyone who took my previous posting as an attempt to limit the free expression of ideas on this list.   It wasn't intended in that spirit, but I can see how it might have been interpreted that way.   ( I also regret the unnecessarily harsh language I used in that posting; I should have stopped and toned it down before sending.)

It should be taken as a given that all of us should feel free to express our opinions on this list, regardless of whether they're supported by extensive research -- bearing in mind, of course, that such freedom carries with it the risk that someone else might critique one's opinion once it's been expressed.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu

________________________________

From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum on behalf of Cynthia Hsieh
Sent: Wed 9/21/2005 2:24 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Constructive criticism vs. lazy expressions of suspicion (RE: [SERIALST] Scopus)

Although I fully agree with Rick about constructive criticism, I also
value free flow of information and freedom of speech, especially for a
listserv. I believe all the librarians on this listserv are critical
thinkers and should be able to filter out information received
themselves.  Personally, I would like to hear the other's personal
opinions/viewpoints (even they are just suspicions), I have confidence
in myself that I know how to make a right judgment.

If I only want research or studies, I would probably go to sources
other than a listserv.

Declaimer: the above is my personal opinion and is not intend to be a
substantial study

Cynthia Hsieh
Head of Technical Services/Assistant Professor
University Library
University of the Pacific
3601 Pacific Ave.
Stockton, CA 95211
Tel: 209-946-2571
chsieh@pacific.edu

>>> rickand@UNR.EDU 9/21/2005 12:58:42 PM >>>
> All librarians should be constructively critical of all
> publishers, not just Elsevier.

Constructive criticism is essential, yes.  But there's a big
difference
between being critical and just expressing suspicion.  Criticism
implies
substance; it implies that one has done some analysis and arrived at a
defensible conclusion.  Expressing suspicion, by contrast, is just a
cheap and easy way of casting aspersion without taking responsibility.

I'm not defending Elsevier here.  I'm saying that we on the library
side
need to be more responsible in our rhetoric.  It also behooves us to
undertake the kind of work that is required in order to make
constructive critiques of Elsevier and other publishers.

In that spirit, is there anyone out there who would like to
collaborate
with me on a substantive study of journal coverage in Scopus (and
maybe
its competitors)?  I'm not exactly sure how to go about it, but I
think
it needs to be done.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu