<Yes, I cross posted. I’m cross!>
Hi all,
I’m just sharing something I found online that is very frustrating.
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, for example – in part because librarians believe that academics can access free papers 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:
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 library.
Wilhelm Widmark, director of 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).
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)
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