From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:55:29 +0100 I am fascinated by Eric’s assurance. Is this based on any special evidence which he can produce? He may well have done a study on how publishers think which is not known to me and which I cannot detect. Anthony From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:07:19 +0000 I think a more accurate way of understanding this statement is that it's in the back of the mind of every Publisher, rather than in the minds of the Librarians. Librarians are interested in getting the most content and value for our dwindling budgets in an ethical manner. Not an easy or simple task. Publishers, on the other hand, are concerned with extracting every penny, ruble, shekel, pence, yuan, yen, and/or ounce of blood they can from anyone who wants to use the content they "publish". It's Capitalism 101. Once you understand the frame of mind someone who works for a publisher, of course they think libraries are leveraging a free resource such as SciHub. Because that's exactly what they would do if they were in the libraries position. When the only objective is the endless acquisition of money silly little things like whether or not a resource is legal or ethical no longer have relevance. -----Original Message----- From: "Maziar, Lucy (EDU)" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:49:26 +0000 It has certainly never been in the background on any negotiations with vendors that I have been involved in. My negotiations have always about rising costs, static or reduced budgets, and the value of the resource to my community along with license terms, customer service, ease of use, etc. Sci Hub and ResearchGate are never in my mind. I also would like to see the data that supports that statement that they are in the background of every library negotiation with publishers. Best, Lucy Lucia Maziar Library Director US Coast Guard Academy Library (DL) 35 Mohegan Ave New London CT 06320 860.444.8517 [log in to unmask] ________________________________ 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