4 ms·

California runs big research universities, but nearly all of the research is funded by federal grants. The state has almost no power here because they’re not th

by _yb2s 2y ago

California runs big research universities, but nearly all of the research is funded by federal grants. The state has almost no power here because they’re not the ones actually paying for research… but this can easily be done by the granting agencies, and the NIH already requires open access. What the state could do is have the universities stop paying for journal access, but in the short term this would be a disaster for researchers. I am an academic PI in California.

jrochkind1 2y ago
The University of California system already cancelled it's Elsevier subscription in 2019, with an aim to making all UC research open access. Without a legislative instruction from the state, just UC librarians and administrators and whatever other UC decision-making processes. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-termina... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/01/university-california-cancels-deal-elsevier-after-months-negotiations https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/01/university-ca... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00758-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00758-x The fact that you are an academic PI in California (At UC?) and don't know this is interesting! In that I guess, for you at least, it didn't have any deleterious effects to lose access to Elsevier subscriptions (apparently it hasn't been a disaster for researchers!), but I guess also the open access efforts haven't had any obvious positive effects notable to you?
- _yb2s 2y ago
  That is in fact what I was referencing when I mentioned that California universities have the power to stop paying for journal access, but not to force researchers publications to be open access. Your information isn't quite accurate anymore, actually in 2022 Elsevier and UC reached an agreement, and they renewed the subscription. Everyone in the UCs currently has full access to Elsevier articles, even the non open access ones. It was indeed difficult and harmful to researchers during the period when access was lost.
  - jrochkind1 2y ago
    Ah, thanks! I wonder why MIT PI's haven't found the same disastrous effects in the past 4 years... unless the summary at OP doesn't accurately represent actual faculty feelings...
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      It just becomes a pain (slower) to get things, but if it's worth reading I think people still manage to get what they need. Nowadays you can pay extra for open access even in a closed access journal and most do- so there are very few truly closed articles published anymore. It is mostly accessing older literature where it becomes a problem, but of course there are ways to get anything, especially if you are tech savvy. Most people in academia have access through some other means- their local public library, alumni access through the schools they went to previously, etc. ResearchGate has also semi-automated the 'request a copy from the author' route. People keep requesting my open access articles through that, which is annoying.
      - jrochkind1 2y ago
        Makes sense. That doesn't sound like a disaster though? > It is mostly accessing older literature where it becomes a problem Not sure if this was true with UC, but MIT still has access to all Elsevier content they had before, if it was published before 2020. ) > ...leaving users with immediate access to only pre-2020 backfile content... I'm not sure the details, but I think there are contracts where the university gets to keep access to the stuff they used to have even when cancelling contact; when transitioning from paper journals, the thought was "If we cancel our subscription we don't lose all those paper journals, and don't have to pay for them again, we want something like that." Now I'm curious the details of this. But the OP write-up was clear that all the pre-2020 "backfile" was still accessible. Also pointing out that as time goes on this will of course be a lower percentage of all requests, since it will remain fixed at pre-2020. (update: during the period, UC said "most articles" 2018 and earlier were still available from backfiles for them too. Perhaps most packages included such a license but not all https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/elsevier-outcome https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/elsevier-outcome ) > ResearchGate has also semi-automated the 'request a copy from the author' route. While the practice is standard of authors handing out free copies, in most cases I think this is either a copyright or license violation with the publisher? The authors have either assigned copyright to the publisher (and do not have permission to distribute on their own), or assigned the publisher an exclusive license that also doesn't let them distribute on their own. Unless this has changed in the past ~5 years since i was more familiar with it. The publishers don't really try to enforce this though, as long as it's individual one-on-one which is interesting. ResearchGate is pushing the boundaries a bit there -- not legally, it's all illegal, but in terms of at what point will the scale and ease of access be high enough that publishers try to get their authors to stop giving away for free what the publisher is trying to sell. Obviously it would look bad, and they don't want make enemies of their authors. The whole thing is a bit odd.

by _yb2s 2y ago

jrochkind1 2y ago

The University of California system already cancelled it's Elsevier subscription in 2019, with an aim to making all UC research open access. Without a legislative instruction from the state, just UC librarians and administrators and whatever other UC decision-making processes. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-termina... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/01/university-california-cancels-deal-elsevier-after-months-negotiations https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/01/university-ca... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00758-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00758-x The fact that you are an academic PI in California (At UC?) and don't know this is interesting! In that I guess, for you at least, it didn't have any deleterious effects to lose access to Elsevier subscriptions (apparently it hasn't been a disaster for researchers!), but I guess also the open access efforts haven't had any obvious positive effects notable to you?

_yb2s 2y ago
That is in fact what I was referencing when I mentioned that California universities have the power to stop paying for journal access, but not to force researchers publications to be open access. Your information isn't quite accurate anymore, actually in 2022 Elsevier and UC reached an agreement, and they renewed the subscription. Everyone in the UCs currently has full access to Elsevier articles, even the non open access ones. It was indeed difficult and harmful to researchers during the period when access was lost.
- jrochkind1 2y ago
  Ah, thanks! I wonder why MIT PI's haven't found the same disastrous effects in the past 4 years... unless the summary at OP doesn't accurately represent actual faculty feelings...
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    It just becomes a pain (slower) to get things, but if it's worth reading I think people still manage to get what they need. Nowadays you can pay extra for open access even in a closed access journal and most do- so there are very few truly closed articles published anymore. It is mostly accessing older literature where it becomes a problem, but of course there are ways to get anything, especially if you are tech savvy. Most people in academia have access through some other means- their local public library, alumni access through the schools they went to previously, etc. ResearchGate has also semi-automated the 'request a copy from the author' route. People keep requesting my open access articles through that, which is annoying.
    - jrochkind1 2y ago
      Makes sense. That doesn't sound like a disaster though? > It is mostly accessing older literature where it becomes a problem Not sure if this was true with UC, but MIT still has access to all Elsevier content they had before, if it was published before 2020. ) > ...leaving users with immediate access to only pre-2020 backfile content... I'm not sure the details, but I think there are contracts where the university gets to keep access to the stuff they used to have even when cancelling contact; when transitioning from paper journals, the thought was "If we cancel our subscription we don't lose all those paper journals, and don't have to pay for them again, we want something like that." Now I'm curious the details of this. But the OP write-up was clear that all the pre-2020 "backfile" was still accessible. Also pointing out that as time goes on this will of course be a lower percentage of all requests, since it will remain fixed at pre-2020. (update: during the period, UC said "most articles" 2018 and earlier were still available from backfiles for them too. Perhaps most packages included such a license but not all https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/elsevier-outcome https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/elsevier-outcome ) > ResearchGate has also semi-automated the 'request a copy from the author' route. While the practice is standard of authors handing out free copies, in most cases I think this is either a copyright or license violation with the publisher? The authors have either assigned copyright to the publisher (and do not have permission to distribute on their own), or assigned the publisher an exclusive license that also doesn't let them distribute on their own. Unless this has changed in the past ~5 years since i was more familiar with it. The publishers don't really try to enforce this though, as long as it's individual one-on-one which is interesting. ResearchGate is pushing the boundaries a bit there -- not legally, it's all illegal, but in terms of at what point will the scale and ease of access be high enough that publishers try to get their authors to stop giving away for free what the publisher is trying to sell. Obviously it would look bad, and they don't want make enemies of their authors. The whole thing is a bit odd.