From: T Scott Plutchak <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:05:17 -0500 Since Anthony has never suggested that “libraries actively use Sci-Hub as a means to support journal cancellations” it seems misplaced, to say the least, that you demand he provide evidence in support of that belief. What he was responding to was your unwarranted vilification of, apparently, everybody who works in publishing. Since this runs contrary to the experience of most people who’ve worked with libraries and publishers, he was right to call you on it. I’ve been a librarian for 36 years and was a library director for 24 of them, so I’ve been through plenty of budget crises and journal cancellations and disputes with publishers. It’s possible I’ve raised my voice once or twice. But I would never accuse everyone who works in publishing of reckless disregard of ethics and the law in pursuit of profit, as you did. My experience has been the same as that which Alex Holzman described in his welcome contribution to this thread — "the people on both sides of this issue, whatever their disagreements, are overwhelmingly good and decent people working to disseminate learning as broadly as they can.” Certainly there are some people in publishing that I distrust and would avoid working with if at all possible. That’s true of some librarians as well. Scott T Scott Plutchak Librarian Epistemologist Birmingham, Alabama [log in to unmask] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-5233 http://tscott.typepad.com On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:39:54 +0000 You're right Anthony, I don't have any special evidence to support my position. Do you have any to support the belief that libraries actively use Sci-Hub as a means to support journal cancellations? I’ve been in the field for over 20 years, gone to countless conferences, read uncountable list-serv posts and have yet to see or hear any librarian say they rely on and intend to cancel journals based on either of those sites. Possibly I missed that session or thread, but I honestly don’t believe so. I think a session on that would be fairly well attended just to hear what someone had to say and how they could justify taking that position. No, the sessions I have seen and attended that mentioned Sci-Hub were always about how to stop that site from downloading articles from our campus networks. That seems a VERY strange session to have when libraries are actively using Sci-hub as a budget relief option. No, the argument libraries rely on those sites seems more like someone is scrambling to understand how universities could cancel their contracts with them. I think the publishing industry find themselves in a situation where the industry they rely on is seriously considering ways to walk away from them completely and are looking for any reason that makes sense. The publishing industry seems to have completely forgotten that they are a service industry to academia, not the other way around. Academia is not there to service the financial needs of the publishing industry. The publishing industry is there to package the content academia produces and then to distribute it back out to other academics. A better question would be why some publishers refuse to see the writing on the wall when every year libraries publish annual reports and articles saying “library budgets continue to shrink” and “publisher prices continue to go up” for 30+ years. If you’re looking for the reasons the current run of library cancellations are happening just look at the base economics. 30% profit margins and average annual 7% price increases. Strawmen arguments are not going to change the base economic reality. Librarians have literally been warning publishers FOR YEARS that the situation was unsustainable. 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] *[SNIP]*