From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:57:11 +0100
I wrote to Danny directly when she posted on another list. I agree
with her. I am not aware of any research on library decision making
processes. We (CIBER) did some work some years ago with the Charleston
Conference but not on this topic as recall. I can understand Danny
being cross but just imagine how annoyed publishers are (I mean the
people actually responsible for publications) when many librarians
automatically assume that decisions made are “commercial” in the
narrow sense – to make more money out of the journal. There is an
amazing lack of knowledge about how decisions are made and how
important editorial boards and particularly editors are never mind
partnering learned societies.
Anthony
Sent: 26 June 2019 00:04
Subject: Re: Frustrating story on Times Higher Education
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:35:24 +1000
Not the ones I have been involved with Joe. Perhaps others on the
list might wish to indicate their situations? Or is there evidence
that I have missed in the public domain somewhere?
The point I am making is:
1. The story is misleading because it is directly claiming
subscriptions are being cancelled because of ResearchGate when it does
not support that with anything substantial, it is all inferred
2. These kinds fo claims are what publishers use to justify embargoes, when:
3. ResearchGate ignores embargoes anyway
The only group that take any notice of embargoes are libraries (the
same libraries that are the ones that pay the subscriptions, mind
you), and they are not the threat anyway.
Embargoes are an expensive (in terms of time spent managing them)
furphy created to ’solve’ a problem that generates elsewhere, and
where there is no evidence to support the original claim regardless.
Danny
On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:31, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 23:09:46 -0400
This is a remarkable claim, Danny. ResearchGate and Sci-Hub are in
the background of every library negotiation with publishers now.
Joe Esposito
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:36 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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://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, for example – in part because librarians believe that
academics can access free papers 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 library.
Wilhelm Widmark, director of 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 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
|
