The paper argues that criminal justice scholarship disseminated through the traditional journal subscription model is not consistent with social justice. Adoption of "open access" principles in publishing benefits both authors and readers through broader and more egalitarian dissemination of criminal justice literature. Moreover, when viewed in light of social justice theory, open access is a more just method of scholarly communication. After providing a brief outline of the history and basic aspects of open access, the paper uses the framework of the social justice theories of John Rawls and David Miller to argue why open access is more just than traditional subscription models of publishing and why criminal justice scholars and their associations must consider the importance of supporting open access initiatives and promoting the dissemination of scholarship as widely as possible if they are concerned about attaining justice for criminal justice scholarly literature.

As university libraries transition to digital collections and new services, their book deselection projects often lead to the adoption of cross-discipline quantitative weeding criteria (such as age and low circulation) in the interest of speed and presumed fairness. Cross-discipline quantitative rubrics, however, can have unintended negative consequences when applied to disciplines such as history and literature that rely on older books with low circulation statistics. The authors argue for a discipline-differentiated approach to weeding academic library collections that can employ quantitative criteria for disciplines, such as in the sciences, that are more reliant on current materials and qualitative criteria for disciplines, such as in the humanities, whose scholars benefit from ready access to older and low-use books.McAllister, Alex D., and Allan Scherlen. 2017. "Weeding with Wisdom: Tuning Deselection of Print Monographs in Book-Reliant Disciplines." Collection Management 42, no. 2: 76-91. Version of record can be found at: http:// dx. AbstractAs university libraries transition to digital collections and new services, their book deselection projects often lead to the adoption of cross-discipline quantitative weeding criteria (such as age and low circulation) in the interest of speed and presumed fairness. Cross-discipline quantitative rubrics, however, can have unintended negative consequences when applied to disciplines such as history and literature that rely on older books with low circulation statistics. The authors argue for a disciplinedifferentiated approach to weeding academic library collections that can employ quantitative criteria for disciplines, such as in the sciences, that are more reliant on current materials and qualitative criteria for disciplines, such as in the humanities, whose scholars benefit from ready access to older and low-use books.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract