From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 02:41:52 +0000 For what it’s worth, my library is about to embark on a major journal cancellation process. It will require us to make very difficult decisions about which journals to retain and which ones to let go, and both the amounts of money involved (even for individual journals) and the anticipated impact on our university’s faculty and students mean that we have a strong incentive to make these decisions very carefully. The process will inevitably involve title-by-title choices, as well decisions at the package level. One of the tools I anticipate we’ll use in making these decisions is UnPaywall, which makes it quick and easy to see what percentage of a journal’s content is freely available online. There will be circumstances in which we’re forced to decide between two equally-desirable journals. Where that’s the case, if the content of one of those journals is more substantially available online than that of the other, it will definitely have an impact on our decision. If it didn’t, we’d be derelict in our duty to use university resources responsibly and to provide the best possible access for our community. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask] *Subject: *Frustrating story on Times Higher Education 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