Legal Research

End of Print Law Reviews?

Law Librarian Group Calls for Ending Publication of Law Reviews in Print Format
Print publication of law reviews is back in the news. Paul Lomio recently reported on Legal Research Plus that the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship calls for all law schools to stop publishing their law reviews in print format and to rely instead on creating definitive versions of their journals in digital formats and making the law review articles readily accessible in online respositories by using a standard set of metadata to catalog each one. The list of signitories to the Statement, all directors of some of the nation's major academic law libraries, is printed below the text of the Durham Statement.

Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship
February 11, 2009

Objective: The undersigned believe that it will benefit legal education and improve the dissemination of legal scholarly information if law schools commit to making the legal scholarship they publish available in stable, open, digital formats in place of print. To accomplish this end, law schools should commit to making agreed-upon stable, open, digital formats, rather than print, the preferable formats for legal scholarship. If stable, open, digital formats are available, law schools should stop publishing law journals in print and law libraries should stop acquiring print law journals. We believe that, in addition to their other benefits, these changes are particularly timely in light of the financial challenges currently facing many law schools.

Rationale: Researchers ? whether students, faculty, or practitioners ? now access legal information of all sorts through digital formats much more frequently than in printed formats. Print copies of law journals and other forms of legal scholarship are slower to arrive than the online digital versions and lack the flexibility needed by 21st century scholars. Yet, most law libraries perceive a continuing need also to acquire legal scholarship in print formats for citation and archiving. (Some libraries are canceling print editions if commercial digital versions are available; others continue to acquire print copies but throw them away after a period of time.)

It is increasingly uneconomical to keep two systems afloat simultaneously. The presumption of need for redundant printed journals adds costs to library budgets, takes up physical space in libraries pressed for space, and has a deleterious effect on the environment; if articles are uniformly available in stable digital formats, they can still be printed on demand. Some libraries may still choose to subscribe to certain journals in multiple formats if they are available. In general, however, we believe that, if law schools are willing to commit to stable and open digital storage for the journals they publish, there are no longer good reasons for individual libraries to rely on paper copies as the archival format. Agreed-upon stable, open, digital formats will ensure that legal scholarship will be preserved in the long-term.

In a time of extreme pressures on law school budgets, moving to all electronic publication of law journals will also eliminate the substantial costs borne by law schools for printing and mailing print editions of their school?s journals, and the costs borne by their libraries to purchase, process and preserve print versions.

Additionally, and potentially most importantly, a move toward digital files as the preferred format for legal scholarship will increase access to legal information and knowledge not only to those inside the legal academy and in practice, but to scholars in other disciplines and to international audiences, many of whom do not now have access either to print journals or to commercial databases.

Call to Action: We therefore urge every U.S. law school to commit to ending print publication of its journals and to making definitive versions of journals and other scholarship produced at the school immediately available upon publication in stable, open, digital formats, rather than in print. We also urge every law school to commit to keeping a repository of the scholarship published at the school in a stable, open, digital format. Some law schools may choose to use a shared regional online repository or to offer their own repositories as places for other law schools to archive the scholarship published at their school.

Repositories should rely upon open standards for the archiving of works, as well as on redundant formats, such as PDF copies. We also urge law schools and law libraries to agree to and use a standard set of metadata to catalog each article to ensure easy online public indexing of legal scholarship.

As a measure of redundancy, we also urge faculty members to reserve their copyrights to ensure that they too can make their own scholarship available in stable, open, digital formats. All law journals should rely upon the AALS model publishing agreement as a default and should respect author requests to retain copyrights in their scholarship.

Richard A. Danner, Duke Law School
Taylor Fitchett, University of Virginia
Margaret A. Fry, Georgetown University Law Center
Paul M. George, University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Claire M. Germain, Cornell Law School
S. Blair Kauffman, Yale Law School
J. Paul Lomio, Stanford Law School
Harry S. (Terry) Martin III, University of Texas Law School
Kent McKeever, Columbia Law School
Jim McMasters, Northwestern University School of Law
John G. Palfrey, Harvard Law School
Radu Popa, New York University Law School
Judith M. Wright University of Chicago Law School

Source: Law Librarian Blog

Full post as published by LexLibris on March 30, 2009 (boomark / email).