From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 23:24:19 +0000

I always enjoy a thought experiment….

If content were all open (and in this thought experiment let’s assume
that is retroactive as well), GS could serve the function (as long as
GOOG keeps it around). But, if we in libraries could re-purpose all
the effort that is currently spent in libraries on enabling
toll-access and mitigating against breaches, we might also create
in-the-workflow tools for research groups/communities/campuses that
would put access and discovery into existing information task tools
rather than relying on a separate GS or the like system where
information resources are retrieved and then brought into other
systems for use, manipulation, etc. They could instead be accessed in
situ. Especially if we are talking known item retrieval. For topical
searches, I think the lessons of many studies of web-scale discovery
thus far show that - as much value as there can be in “here’s
everything search across it” – there is also value in curated
collections for particular communities and content areas. So, we could
do more of that as well if we didn’t have to always battle against
content being in different toll-access systems.

Lisa

**********************************************************************************************************
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive,
Urbana, Illinois 61801
[log in to unmask], 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
**********************************************************************************************************


From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:59:19 +0000

I agree, convenience trumps all. There is power in aggregation - but
if content were open, wouldn't Google Scholar already serve that
function?  I take no position on that, but I do agree that reliable
and convenient friction-free access is the draw. You can go to SciHub
and it works (apparently). And if all journals were OA, you could go
to Google Scholar and they would work.  R4Life and such, as I
understand it, don't operate that seamlessly, nor do toll-based
authentication systems even when one has legitimate access. So
convenience, yes, for sure. I'm just not sure that SciHub would be
needed to solve that problem in an OA world as long as Google Scholar
exists. But maybe there would still be a role for it.

On the other hand, as Mike Taylor says in his blog, maybe things are
fine as they are.  Publishers are paid for subscriptions, users have
access via SciHub, and everyone is happy.

Ivy


> On May 3, 2016, at 5:04 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