From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:29:10 -0400

I completely agree for those people associated with large universities who
go to Sci-Hub  it's a pretty strong statement that our systems are sewn
together with the gaping loose stitches of a forensic pathologist after an
autopsy.  The job of links like "find text" is to take the user directly to
the content, not to another screen that they have to figure out and even
then might not work  I'd like to see publishers recognize the IP ranges of
our universities so that clicking on an article through Google Scholar
takes them directly to the article.  Yes, they'd need to know if we have
access through an aggregator but it does no good to complain about theft of
articles when our systems essentially punish users for attempting legal
access.

We would do far better in academia and publishing to adjust our sails
instead of cursing the wind.  Or, as Patry put it, no law is going to save
the business model of a company that refuses to give the customers what
they want. (don't have my copy of How to Fix Copyright with me or I'd give
a proper citation.

Collette


*Collette Mak*
*Outreach and Scholarly Communications Librarian*

*Hesburgh Libraries *

*University of Notre Dame*
115a Hesburgh Library
Notre Dame, IN 46556
*o:* 574-631-7392
*e: *[log in to unmask]



On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Ivy -- interesting usage counts; thank you for sending them along.  My
> takeaway is somewhat different from yours.  That we'd be better served
> by open access is surely true in many situations (even if not
> realistic in all).
>
> BUT need SciHub even more clearly satisfies is convenience:  the very
> high value of finding so much of what a scientific researcher needs in
> ONE source, no matter who the author or publisher.  See, it appears
> that a sizeable proportion of the SciHub readership comes from
> institutions where there are already subs to these journals.  Amd in
> the case of developing countries, a lot of the readership likely comes
> from institutions where publishers are already providing free or
> hugely discounted access via programs of organizations such as
> Research For Life, INASP, and EIFL.
>
> I (who think SciHub as it exists today is illegal) am trying a thought
> experiment:  SciHub as a large Open Access source, funded by our
> existing subscriptions and big deals.
>
> We can and should find ways to scale up the OA side, but as we do
> this, we will still be weak on the convenience side of things.  It
> doesn't seem to me that better library by library discovery services
> are a sufficient answer here.  Large scale aggregation can be a
> powerful companion to OA, but then how can we all get together and
> make it happen legally?
>
> Perhaps if most of the article literature becomes open access,
> services will develop to aggregate in a sophisticated way?  1Science
> already does a lot of this for us.  These services cost money... I'll
> stop here.
>
> Ann Okerson
>