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://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, 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:

"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 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).

Note the British Academy’s own 2014 finding 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