From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:56:51 +0000

The 4th law states - "save the time of the reader".  If you compare
the ease of use of a site like Scihub with the issues of most library
and publisher sites, shouldn't it be abundantly obvious why patrons
choose the method that saves them time?

It's at least worth the mental effort to walk through each of our own
institutions pathways from start to finish and compare that to the
search experience of Google Scholar(as search tool)+ Scihub(as ft
delivery method).

And publishers need take a long hard look at their own sites.  How
many different ways can you come up with to present a link to the
full-text of an article?  Is it any wonder users, most of whom are
library novices, struggle to find ANYTHING besides a healthy dose of
frustration?

Customers/patrons vote with their feet, so we should all be paying
attention to where the foot traffic is going AND WHY.  Throwing
barriers in front of people is the surest way of encouraging them to
go elsewhere.  Just some food for thought on a Friday:)  Have a great
weekend ya'all,
E

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eric Elmore                                                             |
Electronic Resources Coordinator                     |
The University of Texas at San Antonio            |
One UTSA Circle                                                     |
San Antonio, TX.  78249-0671                             |
(O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577                    |
[log in to unmask]                                         |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: "Macklin, Lisa" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 02:00:12 +0000

I won’t presume to answer for Kevin, and I have nothing but anecdotal
evidence on which to base a response.  However, I think it is possible
(likely?) that researchers with authorized access to subscription
articles find it easier to access those same articles on SciHub.  In
academia, we require log ins and credentials to let the authorized
users in and keep everyone else out.  That reality makes it harder to
make persistent links, use bookmarks effectively, and take full
advantage of other tools.  As a programmer friend of mine used to say,
a keystroke saved is a keystroke earned.  If accessing SciHub saves a
few keystrokes, and reduces barriers to access, that is an attractive
feature for many researchers.

To be clear, I’m not criticizing libraries for putting these
authentication methods in place or making moral judgements about
researchers using SciHub.  I also have no solution to the inefficiency
of authentication, except to eliminate the need for it by making
scholarship openly accessible.  That is easier said than done, as
everyone on this list is fully aware.  :-)

Cheers,

Lisa

Lisa A. Macklin, JD, MLS
Director, Scholarly Communications Office Library and Information
Technology Services Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322
404.727.1535
[log in to unmask]


On 5/31/17, 8:07 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 10:37:28 +0100

    I was waiting for Kevin to say something like this. He would be
    failing in his duty if he did not do so.

    The interesting thing about SciHub is that someone has shown that many
    of the users have access to the articles they go to SciHib for. Why is
    this? I would be interested in his views.

    I would guess that more researchers have access to Elsevier toll
    access articles than to the articles of any other publisher who uses
    the subscription model. They certainly have more big deals and more
    penetration that way than any other publisher.

    Anthony

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:04:33 +0000

    It is a rather curious article, beginning with the very intimidating
    language quoted, but going on to note that the founder of Sci-Hub
    expects to continue to defy the U.S. court.  There is probably very
    little that Elsevier can do to enforce a judgment it obtains, so any
    award is likely to have only symbolic value.  Even the symbolism seems
    likely to have only limited impact, since the grandiose language of
    righteous indignation in Elsevier's motion is so common to them.  They
    say things like "staggering" and "egregious" in every press release
    they issue about alleged infringement and even about public access
    proposals.  They cry wolf so often, in short, that even when that
    language might be justified it is just too easy to dismiss.  And, of
    course, there is the point made at the end of the article that
    Elsevier has likely brought more attention to Sci-Hub than would have
    been possible if they had simply ignored it.  I am sure the
    decision-makers at Elsevier thought this would be their "Napster
    moment," but the truth is that they pretty much made Sci-Hub what it
    is, and now they are finding that they cannot put the genie back in
    the bottle.

    Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
    Dean of Libraries
    University of Kansas