From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:15:32 +0000

Hi Anthony

Two points, one specific, one general.  First the specific, you might
want to speak to librarian friends of yours about the American
Chemical Society’s publishing activity and gauge how they react to the
suggestion that the ACS is, practically if not formally, part of a
“small group of commercial actors”.

More generally, I wonder how genuinely representative university
presses and society publishers are of the communities that they serve.
Often there is formal representation: a Publishing Committee,
Delegates or Syndics, etc.who guide general policy.  But I suspect
(having worked, like Anthony has, for a major university press and
with society publishers) that a lot of the day-to-day, but
nevertheless important, decisions do not have much membership input.
For example, I wonder how widely the APA consulted with its membership
before issuing take-down notices for ‘unauthorised online postings of
APA journal articles':

http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/unauthorized-internet-posting.aspx

And I can’t imagine that a major chemistry society based in the UK
consulted widely with its membership before attempting to impose
massive price rises on customers.  Are these publishers really
‘representative bodies’?

David



On 14 Jun 2017, at 23:47, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:49:21 +0100

I am glad to see that Colin is about still. Hi Colin.  I am always
intrigued by comments like this one (not his):

"By looking into how and where Sci-Hub is used it becomes clear that
barriers to access to scholarly publications remain a real issue, one
that is affecting a diverse group of actors in many different ways.

And thanks to a so-far unbroken oligopoly in academic publishing, with
a small set of commercial actors dominating the market and setting the
terms to access, this is unlikely to change very soon. Thus, issues of
legality aside, Sci-Hub remains a strong route to education for
researchers from states suffering from international embargoes or
economic hardship just as it is for individuals outside academic
institutions everywhere else in the world"

It fascinates me that the American Chemical Society, a representative
body if ever there was one, is included in the heavily weighted phrase
"a small group of commercial actors" and it makes me wonder from the
start how rational this analysis is.
What interests me because my perspective is different is the number of
users of SciHub who already have access: if you work by clicking on a
DOI as many do what could be easier to reach full text. Certainly
easier than using the library you have access to.

Anthony