From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:35:24 +1000 Not the ones I have been involved with Joe. Perhaps others on the list might wish to indicate their situations? Or is there evidence that I have missed in the public domain somewhere? The point I am making is: 1. The story is misleading because it is directly claiming subscriptions are being cancelled because of ResearchGate when it does not support that with anything substantial, it is all inferred 2. These kinds fo claims are what publishers use to justify embargoes, when: 3. ResearchGate ignores embargoes anyway The only group that take any notice of embargoes are libraries (the same libraries that are the ones that pay the subscriptions, mind you), and they are not the threat anyway. Embargoes are an expensive (in terms of time spent managing them) furphy created to ’solve’ a problem that generates elsewhere, and where there is no evidence to support the original claim regardless. Danny On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:31, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 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 >