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://t.co/UDM7d6sFeH>
> 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
> <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/talks-collapse-germany-rejects-unacceptable-elsevier-offer>,
> for example – in part because librarians believe that academics can
> access free papers
> <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/german-and-swedish-libraries-shrug-elsevier-shutdown> 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
> <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/linkoping-university>
>  library.
>
> Wilhelm Widmark, director of Stockholm University
> <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/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
> <https://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/BRIJ1622_British%20Academy%20Open_Access_Journals_Report_WEB.pdf>
>  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
>