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 >