Cancelling with the world’s largest scholarly publisher: lessons from the Swedish experience of having no access to Elsevier

IF 1.1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Insights-The UKSG Journal Pub Date : 2020-04-22 DOI:10.1629/uksg.507
Lisa Olsson, C. Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson
{"title":"Cancelling with the world’s largest scholarly publisher: lessons from the Swedish experience of having no access to Elsevier","authors":"Lisa Olsson, C. Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson","doi":"10.1629/uksg.507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article covers the consequences of the decision of the Bibsam consortium to cancel its journal licence agreement with Elsevier, the world’s largest scholarly publisher, in 2018. First, we report on how the cancellation affected Swedish researchers. Second, we describe other consequences of the cancellation. Finally, we report on lessons for the future. In short, there was no consensus among researchers on how the cancellation affected them or whether the cancellation was positive or negative for them. Just over half (54%) of the 4,221 researchers who responded to a survey indicated that the cancellation had harmed their work, whereas 37% indicated that it had not. Almost half (48%) of the researchers had a negative view of the cancellation, whereas 38% had a positive view. The cancellation highlighted the ongoing work at research libraries to facilitate the transition to an open access publishing system to more stakeholders in academia than before. It also showed that Swedish vice-chancellors were prepared to suspend subscriptions with a publisher that could not accommodate the needs and requirements of open science. Finally, the cancellation resulted in the signing of a transformative agreement which started on 1 January 2020. If it had not been for the cancellation, the reaching of such an agreement would have been unlikely.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article covers the consequences of the decision of the Bibsam consortium to cancel its journal licence agreement with Elsevier, the world’s largest scholarly publisher, in 2018. First, we report on how the cancellation affected Swedish researchers. Second, we describe other consequences of the cancellation. Finally, we report on lessons for the future. In short, there was no consensus among researchers on how the cancellation affected them or whether the cancellation was positive or negative for them. Just over half (54%) of the 4,221 researchers who responded to a survey indicated that the cancellation had harmed their work, whereas 37% indicated that it had not. Almost half (48%) of the researchers had a negative view of the cancellation, whereas 38% had a positive view. The cancellation highlighted the ongoing work at research libraries to facilitate the transition to an open access publishing system to more stakeholders in academia than before. It also showed that Swedish vice-chancellors were prepared to suspend subscriptions with a publisher that could not accommodate the needs and requirements of open science. Finally, the cancellation resulted in the signing of a transformative agreement which started on 1 January 2020. If it had not been for the cancellation, the reaching of such an agreement would have been unlikely.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与世界上最大的学术出版商取消合作:瑞典无法访问爱思唯尔的经验教训
这篇文章涵盖了Bibsam财团在2018年决定取消其与世界最大学术出版商爱思唯尔的期刊许可协议的后果。首先,我们报道了取消对瑞典研究人员的影响。其次,我们描述了取消的其他后果。最后,我们报告未来的经验教训。简言之,对于取消对他们的影响,或者取消对他们来说是积极的还是消极的,研究人员之间没有达成共识。在4221名接受调查的研究人员中,略高于一半(54%)的人表示取消工作损害了他们的工作,而37%的人表示没有。近一半(48%)的研究人员对取消持负面看法,而38%的研究人员持正面看法。此次取消突显了研究图书馆正在进行的工作,以促进向学术界更多利益相关者开放获取出版系统的过渡。它还表明,瑞典副校长准备暂停订阅一家无法满足开放科学需求和要求的出版商。最后,取消导致签署了一项变革性协议,该协议于2020年1月1日开始生效。如果不是取消,就不太可能达成这样的协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Insights-The UKSG Journal
Insights-The UKSG Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The missing link: the quality of UK local and national online media coverage of research The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset EvenUP: a case study of building cross-publisher collaboration on Equity, Diversity, Inclusivity and Belonging Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights Open access at a crossroads: library publishing and bibliodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1