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



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