From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:08:59 +1000

<Yes, I cross posted. I’m cross!>

Hi all,

I’m just sharing something I found online that is very frustrating.

This Times Higher Education article - "Publishers fail to stem tide of
illicit ResearchGate uploads" https://www. <https://t.co/UDM7d6sFeH>
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-fail-stem-tide-illicit-researchgate-uploads
is claiming that because papers are on ResearchGate then libraries can
cancel subscriptions:

Publishers say that tens of thousands of copyright-infringing research
papers are still being uploaded to the online academic network ResearchGate
every month, making it easier for universities to ditch their journal
subscription contacts [sic] because so many articles are now available for
free.
<…>
In Europe in particular, university consortia have in recent years struck a
much more assertive line with publishers over cost and open access –
Germany’s consortium is currently without a contract with Elsevier
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/talks-collapse-germany-rejects-unacceptable-elsevier-offer>,
for example – in part because librarians believe that academics can access
free papers
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/german-and-swedish-libraries-shrug-elsevier-shutdown>
through
sites such as ResearchGate.

The problem is there is NO causal arrow between material being online
somewhere and library subscriptions. The link that second quote goes to is
this:

"German and Swedish libraries shrug off Elsevier shutdown" -
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/german-and-swedish-libraries-shrug-elsevier-shutdown
This second story refers to:

Swedish libraries are able to get around the blockage through inter-library
loans – borrowing papers from libraries that still have access, for example
those abroad. “So long as inter-library loan is an option, I see no
problem,” said David Lawrence, director of Linköping University
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/linkoping-university>
 library.

Wilhelm Widmark, director of Stockholm University
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/stockholm-university>
library,
said that he had not yet received many requests for loans, and suspected
instead that scholars were sharing articles. “We haven't had any complaints
yet,” he said. “We have only received some feedback from researchers who
support our cancellation.”

So we are led to assume that:
1. The ’suspicion’ of the Stockholm library that scholars are sharing
articles
2. Means they are using ResearchGate
3. And librarians are cancelling subscriptions as a result

This is the kind of rubbish non- ‘evidence’ that keeps getting trotted out.
It is the ‘justification' publishers use for the "green open access equals
cancellations” argument that they need embargoes to maintain
’sustainability’ (read profit).

Note the British Academy’s own 2014 finding
<https://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/BRIJ1622_British%20Academy%20Open_Access_Journals_Report_WEB.pdf>
 that “libraries for the most part thought that embargoes for
author-accepted manuscripts had little effect on their acquisition
policies” and that any real cancellation issue was “the rising cost of
journals at a time of budgetary constraint for libraries. If that
continues, journals will be cancelled anyway, whether posted manuscripts
are available or not.”
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/BRIJ1622_British%20Academy%20Open_Access_Journals_Report_WEB.pdf

I brought this issue of lack of evidence up in (Oct 2015) "Half-life is
half the story” https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331

The issue with embargoes is that as repository manager, libraries spend an
inordinate amount of time managing them - see the decision trees in this
blog: 'Open Access policy, procedure & process at Cambridge’
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1613

This represents is even more expenditure that libraries make (in the form
of staff time) to publishers. In addition, introducing or increasing
embargo periods is a very effective method of encouraging funded authors to
select a paid-for open access option. (see "Flipping journals or filling
pockets? Publisher manipulation of OA policies”
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1726)

Sigh. I have ranted on Twitter about this -
https://twitter.com/dannykay68/status/1142563885813133312

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
17 Eureka St
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059
e: [log in to unmask]
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939