CMLawLibraryBlog

On 1 October 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency began to implement its new National Framework for the Headquarters and Regional Libraries. The new Library Framework was based upon several studies and workgroup initiatives conducted since 2003, and stimulated into implementation by the Bush administration's proposed FY 2007 Budget, which includes a $2 million cut in the EPA Office of Environmental Information library budget. The new EPA Library Framework calls for closing all 27 EPA libraries; to date Regions 5, 6, and 7 libraries in Chicago, Dallas, and Kansas City have been closed. While the EPA libraries are to be closed, their collections are supposed to be thoroughly reviewed for dissemination to regional repositories, digitization, or disposal. The new Library Framework has generated controversy among numerous EPA scientists as well as library and public policy groups, particularly in reference to removal of documents from library websites and sales of library equipment. Because the FY 2007 Budget has not yet been approved, protesters and incoming Democratic House Committee Chairs are asking the EPA to halt implementation of the new Library Framework.

Earlham College Philosophy Professor Peter Suber, one of the most respected leaders of the Open Access movement, wishes to post this comment on yesterday’s blog entry, to make clear the critical difference between self-publishing and self-archiving:

Depositing work in an open-access repository should be called self-archiving, not self-publishing. It's not at all like vanity publishing with the stigma washed off. Self-archiving is about providing open access to peer-reviewed research, not about bypassing peer review. The vast majority of self-archived articles are preprints, which are stages on the way to peer-reviewed publication, or postprints, which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Self publishing used to carry a negative connotation – the concept of using a “vanity” press aptly captures the idea – but in today’s scholarship arena, self publishing signifies the new frontier. Whether posted on individual web pages or archived in institutional repositories, open access scholarship made available to the world without the barriers of subscription or access fees disseminates knowledge broadly, efficiently and freely. Carol Parker writes about the implications of open access initiatives for law schools and legal scholars in Institutional Repositories and the Principle of Open Access: Changing the Way We Think About Legal Scholarship, available at SSRN’s http://ssrn.com/abstract=928489 and bepress’s http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1705 , soon to be published also in the New Mexico Law Review.

The Asian Legal Information Institute (AsiaLII) is now available.

Introducing the Asian Legal Institute (AsianLII) and

Declaration on Free Access to Law

For more information on searching AsiaLII, see

User Guide to AsianLII

If you are one of the students taking exams on PCs this semester, you need to download the "Exam4" software from the Extegrity, Inc. Web site at http://www.extegrity.com to your laptop. Even if you did this during a previous semester, you need to download the software again because previous downloads expire and will not run again. The software is free and very much like a simple word processor. It works well with most Windows operating systems, including Microsoft Windows 98, Me, 2000, NT or XP. There is also a version for Apple laptops running OS X 10.4 (Tiger). It is strongly advised that you run the program in practice mode to familiarize yourself with it. While taking your exam, "Exam4" prevents you from accessing the Web, email, and instant messaging software. "Exam4" backs up your work every 30 seconds and provides 128-bit encryption, making sure your work is protected and secure. After you complete your exam and submit it, you will exit "Exam 4," and operation of all of your normal laptop programs will be restored.

To run "Exam4" software, your laptop must have either (a) a wireless card with a preexisting connection to the CSU wireless network, or (b) a 3.5 floppy disk drive or an optical drive capable of burning a CD so you can submit your exam. Your laptop will also need 10 MB of hard disk space available and a minimum 800x600 screen resolution. Perhaps most importantly, you must make certain your laptop is in good working condition and has the latest Windows patches and anti-virus updates available.

All laptops must be plugged into an electrical outlet. No battery power will be utilized. You will be informed in advance of the exam period as to which classroom you should report.

If you have questions about exam software downloading or hardware requirements, contact the College of Law Automation Department at automation@law.csuohio.edu or 216-523-7555, stop by the Automation Office in Law Library Room 112, or visit the Exam FAQ Web page at http://www.law.csuohio.edu/exam_faq.html.

 (More)

With input from our faculty, especially our Legal Writing Faculty, we bring you this list of more Cleveland-Marshall student articles which have been published in other legal publications. We are proud of our students/alums, and we encourage further additions to this list. (Links to LexisNexis text require passwords; link to HeinOnline on the CSU Campus.)

Max Dehn, How It Works: Sobriety Sentencing, the Constitution, and Alcoholics Anonymous, 10 Michigan State Univeristy Journal of Medicine and Law 256 (2006)

Robert Sieg, Attempted Possession of Child Pornography - A Proposed Approach for Criiminalizing Possession of Child Pornographic Images of Unknown Origin, 36 University of Toledo Law Review 263 (2005)

Cleveland Attorney Russ Bensing’s blog, The Briefcase: Commentary and Analysis of Ohio Law, focuses on Ohio law, particularly decisions of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. He highlights criminal law, procedure, contracts and torts cases, with his personal observations on trends of interest to solo and small firm practitioners. A recent post, titled Zero Damages, compares three recent Ohio appellate decisions where plaintiffs recovered no or significantly limited damages, one despite defendant’s admission of liability, and two with controversial treatment of the pain and suffering damages issue.

• Main
• Archives
• Folders
• Dashboard
• Links

• RSS 2.0

• New Lexis Enhancements
• Design Your Own Research Class With MyClass
• Writing a Note or Paper? Get Help with an Individualized Research Consultation
• Faculty Course Page Options
• CCH Databases are Here!
• Library Closed Labor Day
• 1912 Ohio Constitution Proceedings Now Online
• New: Visual Tour of the Library Webpage
• Facebook-Become A Fan
• Law Library Research Certificates Resume

• Career Information [29]
• Community Events [15]
• Faculty Teaching and Scholarship [46]
• From The Director [4]
• Government Information and News [21]
• International [30]
• Law Library News and Events [56]
• Law Student News [21]
• Law-Zarro [19]
• Legal Research & Writing [103]
• Library Resources and Databases [60]
• National [75]
• Ohio and Local [63]
• Speakers and Visiting Scholars [11]
• Study and Exam Tips [18]

• Blog Directories
  • Law Professor Blogs
  • Law X.0: A Taxonomy of Legal Blogs
  • Justia Blog Search
  • Blawg Republic
• Blogs by C-M Professors
  • Comparative Racism and the Law - Canada/U.S.
  • Before the Law
• Blogs for Law Faculty
  • Legal Scholarship Blog
• Blogs for Law Students
  • The Frugal Law Student
  • JD2B
  • WishIWouldHaveKnown
• Blogs of General Legal Interest
  • SCOTUS Blog
  • Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
  • Ohio State Supreme Court News
  • Wall Street Journal.com Law Blog
  • Above the Law
  • Law School Innovation
  • Supreme Dicta
  • The Volokh Conspiracy