#Interlibrary Loan

[mostlysignssomeportents]

MIT libraries are thriving without Elsevier

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Once you learn about the "collective action problem," you start seeing it everywhere. Democrats – including elected officials – all wanted Biden to step down, but none of them wanted to be the first one to take a firm stand, so for months, his campaign limped on: a collective action problem.

Patent trolls use bullshit patents to shake down small businesses, demanding "license fees" that are high, but much lower than the cost of challenging the patent and getting it revoked. Collectively, it would be much cheaper for all the victims to band together and hire a fancy law firm to invalidate the patent, but individually, it makes sense for them all to pay. A collective action problem:

https://locusmag.com/2013/11/cory-doctorow-collective-action/

Musicians get royally screwed by Spotify. Collectively, it would make sense for all of them to boycott the platform, which would bring it to its knees and either make it pay more or put it out of business. Individually, any musician who pulls out of Spotify disappears from the horizon of most music fans, so they all hang in – a collective action problem:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/#universally-loathed

Same goes for the businesses that get fucked out of 30% of their app revenues by Apple and Google's mobile business. Without all those apps, Apple and Google wouldn't have a business, but any single app that pulls out commits commercial suicide, so they all hang in there, paying a 30% vig:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/15/private-law/#thirty-percent-vig

That's also the case with Amazon sellers, who get rooked for 45-51 cents out of every dollar in platform junk fees, and whose prize for succeeding despite this is to have their product cloned by Amazon, which underprices them because it doesn't have to pay a 51% rake on every sale. Without third-party sellers there'd be no Amazon, but it's impossible to get millions of sellers to all pull out at once, so the Bezos crime family scoops up half of the ecommerce economy in bullshit fees:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

This is why one definition of "corruption" is a system with "concentrated gains and diffuse losses." The company that dumps toxic waste in your water supply reaps all the profits of externalizing its waste disposal costs. The people it poisons each bear a fraction of the cost of being poisoned. The environmental criminal has a fat warchest of ill-gotten gains to use to bribe officials and pay fancy lawyers to defend it in court. Its victims are each struggling with the health effects of the crimes, and even without that, they can't possibly match the polluter's resources. Eventually, the polluter spends enough money to convince the Supreme Court to overturn "Chevron deference" and makes it effectively impossible to win the right to clean water and air (or a planet that's not on fire):

https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/us-supreme-courts-chevron-deference-ruling-will-disrupt-climate-policy

Any time you encounter a shitty, outrageous racket that's stable over long timescales, chances are you're looking at a collective action problem. Certainly, that's the underlying pathology that preserves the scholarly publishing scam, which is one of the most grotesque, wasteful, disgusting frauds in our modern world (and that's saying something, because the field is crowded with many contenders).

Here's how the scholarly publishing scam works: academics do original scholarly research, funded by a mix of private grants, public funding, funding from their universities and other institutions, and private funds. These academics write up their funding and send it to a scholarly journal, usually one that's owned by a small number of firms that formed a scholarly publishing cartel by buying all the smaller publishers in a string of anticompetitive acquisitions. Then, other scholars review the submission, for free. More unpaid scholars do the work of editing the paper. The paper's author is sent a non-negotiable contract that requires them to permanently assign their copyright to the journal, again, for free. Finally, the paper is published, and the institution that paid the researcher to do the original research has to pay again – sometimes tens of thousands of dollars per year! – for the journal in which it appears.

The academic publishing cartel insists that the millions it extracts from academic institutions and the billions it reaps in profit are all in service to serving as neutral, rigorous gatekeepers who ensure that only the best scholarship makes it into print. This is flatly untrue. The "editorial process" the academic publishers take credit for is virtually nonexistent: almost everything they publish is virtually unchanged from the final submission format. They're not even typesetting the paper:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1

The vetting process for peer-review is a joke. Literally: an Australian academic managed to get his dog appointed to the editorial boards of seven journals:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/olivia-doll-predatory-journals

Far from guarding scientific publishing from scams and nonsense, the major journal publishers have stood up entire divisions devoted to pay-to-publish junk science. Elsevier – the largest scholarly publisher – operated a business unit that offered to publish fake journals full of unreveiwed "advertorial" papers written by pharma companies, packaged to look like a real journal:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090504075453/http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

Naturally, academics and their institutions hate this system. Not only is it purely parasitic on their labor, it also serves as a massive brake on scholarly progress, by excluding independent researchers, academics at small institutions, and scholars living in the global south from accessing the work of their peers. The publishers enforce this exclusion without mercy or proportion. Take Diego Gomez, a Colombian Masters candidate who faced eight years in prison for accessing a single paywalled academic paper:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/colombian-student-faces-prison-charges-sharing-academic-article-online

And of course, there's Aaron Swartz, the young activist and Harvard-affiliated computer scientist who was hounded to death after he accessed – but did not publish – papers from MIT's JSTOR library. Aaron had permission to access these papers, but JSTOR, MIT, and the prosecutors Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz argued that because he used a small computer program to access the papers (rather than clicking on each link by hand) he had committed 13 felonies. They threatened him with more than 30 years in prison, and drew out the proceedings until Aaron was out of funds. Aaron hanged himself in 2013:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

Academics know all this terrible stuff is going on, but they are trapped in a collective action problem. For an academic to advance in their field, they have to publish, and they have to get their work cited. Academics all try to publish in the big prestige journals – which also come with the highest price-tag for their institutions – because those are the journals other academics read, which means that getting published is top journal increases the likelihood that another academic will find and cite your work.

If academics could all agree to prioritize other journals for reading, then they could also prioritize other journals for submissions. If they could all prioritize other journals for submissions, they could all prioritize other journals for reading. Instead, they all hold one another hostage, through a wicked collective action problem that holds back science, starves their institutions of funding, and puts their colleagues at risk of imprisonment.

Despite this structural barrier, academics have fought tirelessly to escape the event horizon of scholarly publishing's monopoly black hole. They avidly supported "open access" publishers (most notably PLoS), and while these publishers carved out pockets for free-to-access, high quality work, the scholarly publishing cartel struck back with package deals that bundled their predatory "open access" journals in with their traditional journals. Academics had to pay twice for these journals: first, their institutions paid for the package that included them, then the scholars had to pay open access submission fees meant to cover the costs of editing, formatting, etc – all that stuff that basically doesn't exist.

Academics started putting "preprints" of their work on the web, and for a while, it looked like the big preprint archive sites could mount a credible challenge to the scholarly publishing cartel. So the cartel members bought the preprint sites, as when Elsevier bought out SSRN:

https://www.techdirt.com/2016/05/17/disappointing-elsevier-buys-open-access-academic-pre-publisher-ssrn/

Academics were elated in 2011, when Alexandra Elbakyan founded Sci-Hub, a shadow library that aims to make the entire corpus of scholarly work available without barrier, fear or favor:

https://sci-hub.ru/alexandra

Sci-Hub neutralized much of the collective action trap: once an article was available on Sci-Hub, it became much easier for other scholars to locate and cite, which reduced the case for paying for, or publishing in, the cartel's journals:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.14979

The scholarly publishing cartel fought back viciously, suing Elbakyan and Sci-Hub for tens of millions of dollars. Elsevier targeted prepress sites like academia.edu with copyright threats, ordering them to remove scholarly papers that linked to Sci-Hub:

https://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/

This was extremely (if darkly) funny, because Elsevier's own publications are full of citations to Sci-Hub:

https://eve.gd/2019/08/03/elsevier-threatens-others-for-linking-to-sci-hub-but-does-it-itself/

Meanwhile, scholars kept the pressure up. Tens of thousands of scholars pledged to stop submitting their work to Elsevier:

http://thecostofknowledge.com/

Academics at the very tops of their fields publicly resigned from the editorial board of leading Elsevier journals, and published editorials calling the Elsevier model unethical:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/may/16/system-profit-access-research

And the New Scientist called the racket "indefensible," decrying the it as an industry that made restricting access to knowledge "more profitable than oil":

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032052-900-time-to-break-academic-publishings-stranglehold-on-research/

But the real progress came when academics convinced their institutions, rather than one another, to do something about these predator publishers. First came funders, private and public, who announced that they would only fund open access work:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7

Winning over major funders cleared the way for open access advocates worked both the supply-side and the buy-side. In 2019, the entire University of California system announced it would be cutting all of its Elsevier subscriptions:

https://www.science.org/content/article/university-california-boycotts-publishing-giant-elsevier-over-journal-costs-and-open

Emboldened by the UC system's principled action, MIT followed suit in 2020, announcing that it would no longer send $2m every year to Elsevier:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/12/digital-feudalism/#nerdfight

It's been four years since MIT's decision to boycott Elsevier, and things are going great. The open access consortium SPARC just published a stocktaking of MIT libraries without Elsevier:

https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/mit-libraries/

How are MIT's academics getting by without Elsevier in the stacks? Just fine. If someone at MIT needs access to an Elsevier paper, they can usually access it by asking the researchers to email it to them, or by downloading it from the researcher's site or a prepress archive. When that fails, there's interlibrary loan, whereby other libraries will send articles to MIT's libraries within a day or two. For more pressing needs, the library buys access to individual papers through an on-demand service.

This is how things were predicted to go. The libraries used their own circulation data and the webservice Unsub to figure out what they were likely to lose by dropping Elsevier – it wasn't much!

https://unsub.org/

The MIT story shows how to break a collective action problem – through collective action! Individual scholarly boycotts did little to hurt Elsevier. Large-scale organized boycotts raised awareness, but Elsevier trundled on. Sci-Hub scared the shit out of Elsevier and raised awareness even further, but Elsevier had untold millions to spend on a campaign of legal terror against Sci-Hub and Elbakyan. But all of that, combined with high-profile defections, made it impossible for the big institutions to ignore the issue, and the funders joined the fight. Once the funders were on-side, the academic institutions could be dragged into the fight, too.

Now, Elsevier – and the cartel – is in serious danger. Automated tools – like the Authors Alliance termination of transfer tool – lets academics get the copyright to their papers back from the big journals so they can make them open access:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/26/take-it-back/

Unimaginably vast indices of all scholarly publishing serve as important adjuncts to direct access shadow libraries like Sci-Hub:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/28/clintons-ghost/#cornucopia-concordance

Collective action problems are never easy to solve, but they're impossible to address through atomized, individual action. It's only when we act as a collective that we can defeat the corruption – the concentrated gains and diffuse losses – that allow greedy, unscrupulous corporations to steal from us, wreck our lives and even imprison us.

Community voting for SXSW is live! If you wanna hear RIDA QADRI and me talk about how GIG WORKERS can DISENSHITTIFY their jobs with INTEROPERABILITY, VOTE FOR THIS ONE!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-the-elsevier

[queerliblib]

Do you know of any other free online libraries like yours? I love QLL So Much and I would love to be able to expand my book possibilities even more :) They don’t have to be queer focused - anything is good! (Of course i’m also signed up w my local library which is great and has a good-size selection, but sometimes holds are very long)

one of the reasons we exist is because there isn’t anyone else doing exactly what we do!

there are quite a few other brick & mortar queer libraries scattered across the continent but most don’t have that digital presence (unless you’re in Minnesota! if so, check out Quatrefoil). there are also a LOT of regular libraries with digital collections on Libby or Hoopla - some public libraries have really specific residency requirements to be a member, others have some flexibility (reddit is actually a font of knowledge if you’re exploring this - r/audiobooks or r/libby to start). If you already have a public library card, there are also a lot of resource-sharing initiatives out there between libraries that you may be eligible for - for example MeL in michigan, or the Brooklyn Public Library’s Books UnBanned initiative if you meet their age window, or if you have any connections to an academic library InterLibraryLoan (ILL) - even if you’re not a student/faculty/staff some colleges/universities have ‘community user’ policies you could explore. you can always walk into your library and ask a library worker if your local system is connected to anything like this (they will be THRILLED to answer that question, let me tell you).

I’d also strongly encourage you to go absolutely hog wild on Open Access resources like Project Gutenberg, which has a ton of amazing things in the public domain. also the directory of open access books or world digital library for the more academically inclined.

[jjr1971]

DOGE/Trump are *targeting* IMLS...this endangers the Interlibrary Loan management system (ShareIt) for the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS. If IMLS funds go away, the State of Texas would have to make up the difference. This is seriously fucked. If ShareIt is defunded, it will be incredibly disruptive and Libraries will be scrambling for an alternative or going to the Texas Legislature hat in hand to beg for replacement funds; meanwhile AutoGraphics might sue IMLS/the Federal Government for breach of contract because of DOGE mayhem. Worst case scenario, we have to go back to managing ILL on paper with filing cabinets and manually creating temporary bib records for each and every ILL book, as if it were the 1970s or 80s. Yay. [/sarcasm]

[classicbrion]

I love inter library loan

You can find so much to finish a collection of comics or a book you’re craving.

Libraries are so vital to our community

[petiolata]

This pisses me off so much. "Willing" to supply the book? If they're not willing to send out their own books, why tf are they allowed to stay in the Nationwide Interlibrary Loan Borrowing Program?

Kick the parasites out. Why should they get to take books from more generous libraries while they refuse to lend out their own?

There are absolutely libraries in the program that have this book btw, the system wouldn't have let me request it otherwise.

[salvadorbonaparte]

hey my interlibrary loan is not loading properly does anyone have access to "Narrating, Framing, Reflecting ‘Disability’: 21st-Century ‘American’ Perspectives" edited by Raussert and Essifi, specifically the chapter on Charlie Kaufman?

[therainbowwillow]

Checking my email every five minutes in the hopes that my Interlibrary Loans are in

[cosmogyros]

I gotta say this is one thing that annoys me about Germany: inter-library loan costing money.

Back in the US, all I had to do was get a library card (which is free) and then I could take out any book the library had... and if they didn't have it, I could get it through ILL, meaning that it would be shipped to my library from whatever other library in the country had it, and then I could pick it up at my local library (also for free) and read it.

In Germany, a library card costs 10 euros - although I don't mind that at all, in fact I'm glad about it because I'm happy to support the libraries. But here's the annoying bit: even in Berlin, the local libraries rarely have the book I want, so I would have to order it through inter-library loan - which costs between €2.50 and €4.50 per book! AND it then takes up to a month to arrive!

This seems kind of ridiculous, seeing as I could buy the same book from AbeBooks or whatever for likely the same price or even cheaper - I bought three used books online the other day, and none of them cost more than three euros. And they usually arrive within a week or two.

I'm kind of surprised that Germany, with its emphasis on public services (still not great, but generally better than the US) and obsession with academia and intellectualism, would not set more government funds aside to support the library system.

[latest-info]

How to Access Exclusive Research Archives Online

In the digital age, exclusive research archives have become invaluable resources for academics, professionals, and curious minds alike.

In the digital age, exclusive research archives have become invaluable resources for academics, professionals, and curious minds alike. These archives house a wealth of information, often containing rare and comprehensive collections that are not readily available to the general public. Accessing these archives can seem daunting, but with the right approach, it is entirely feasible. Here’s a…

[archivlibrarianist]

The Unpaywall extension can be added onto Firefox and Chrome to find you free copies of any article you may need. On social media, #icanhaspdf is also still in use sometimes on Bluesky and Mastodon.

Finally, can't stress this enough: check if your library has Interlibrary Loan. Most libraries worldwide participate in it, and certainly libraries in the United States do. You may wind up waiting a few days for a paper, but it is an option and in most cases there is no charge.

Beware!

[wisteriaclaw]

the true poob was the worldcat we met along the way....

[charlie-grusin]

Interlibrary loans: if anybody else don’t got ‘em, your library can!

(there is of course the exceptional case where in they may, in fact, can’t get a requested item for you but let me tell you something when they do oh boy do they!)

Notables:

- The Eternal Zero (2014) dir. Takashi Yamasaki (pictured here)

- The Making of King Kong by George E. Turner and Orville Goldner (also pictured here, with Turner signature and fine Kong-Cooper caricature)

- Making Movies by Sidney Lumet

- Such Nice People (obscure crime-horror novel) by Sandra Scoppetone

- the obscure social crime novels of Shane Stevens (excluding By Reason of Insanity, Anvil Chorus and the J. W. Rider novels)

Ask about it, talk about it, and put it to good use!

[daisukitoo]

For what reason are those books in the library at all if not to be checked out and read? Are they there as honeypots for Problematic People™?

It is an interlibrary loan request. Their library does not have the Red Flag Cannibalism Book. They had to request it from Evil District Library over in Villainy County.

The Nonproblematic People who happen to live in Villainy County also use interlibrary loan to request non-Red Flag Books from other libraries, like Christian romance fiction. The interns at Evil District Library ask if they are supposed to look out for 'green flag' book requests.

Feel free to debate which region is more likely to have book police and reeducation camps.

newbie asked if we're supposed to look out for 'red flags' in interlibrary loan requests in reference to a request a patron had made for a book about cannibalism. she was looking expectantly at me like she was expecting me to be equally aghast at this........girl why would you work at a library if you want to play book police

[lydiardbell]

Two sentence horror story

You received an update for UPS WorldShip. WorldShip will now update.

[romanceyourdemons]

i love when a book introduces a detective character. “suddenly, a weird guy walked into the room. they wore a weird outfit and immediately started doing weird things. the other characters exchanged a look. half of them didn’t know who this guy was, and the other half was like come on not this fucking guy. the guy took a big ol bite of dirt right from the ground. ‘check that man’s butthole for worms,’ they said.” you just know you’re about to get The Character Poisoning in your brain when that happens

[chiropteracupola]

I had to draw a tricorn hat and I disliked that so much that now I've checked my email, requested multiple medication renewals, and put about a dozen books on hold at the library.