On April 19, on the homepage of the website of the Documentation and Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a lecture on "Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform Resource Use Skills" was hung up. At that time, the storm between the agency and the Chinese literature database CNKI was still fermenting in the field of public opinion.
Earlier, in a confirmed notice, the Documentation and Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences reported that since 2008, the center has borne the full subscription fee and opened the use of CNKI science and technology journals and doctoral master's degree dissertation databases throughout the hospital, and over the years, the CNKI database has maintained a high increase in renewal prices by virtue of its influential position in the Chinese journal database market. In 2021, the total cost of the CNKI database subscription of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Group will reach the level of 10 million yuan. In 2022, the Documentation and Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences negotiated several rounds with CNKI, and CNKI's CNKI database still insisted on a renewal fee of nearly 10 million, and the conditions for the number of members and the price of a single family were quite harsh.
According to the above situation, the Documentation and Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is considering forming an alternative guarantee for the CNKI database through the Vip Journal Database and the Wanfang Dissertation Database.
On April 19, CNKI made a statement "in response to social concerns": In 2022, the Documentation and Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences adjusted the procurement model of some databases at home and abroad, including CNKI database, from a unified centralized procurement model to a joint procurement model organized by institutions in need. After friendly consultation, the work of adjusting the subscription model of CNKI database is being promoted in an orderly manner, and the order content is selected by each institute, and it is planned to complete the group work, sign the agreement and start the 2022 annual service in the near future.
Regarding the part described in the above notice that "Tongfang CNKI Technology Co., Ltd. (CNKI database publisher) suspends the right of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to use the CNKI database, and from April 8, CNKI science and technology journals and doctoral dissertation databases cannot be downloaded" part, CNKI said that after the expiration of the 2021 annual agreement, in order to meet the literature acquisition needs of researchers and teachers and students, the Documentation And Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and CNKI agreed to extend the subscription service to March 31. During the transition period after April 1, CNKI continued its services without service stoppage or interruption. CNKI will also continue to provide normal services to the institutes affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Sciences until the 2022 annual agreement is signed and the service is launched.
It is worth noting that CNKI's reply on April 19 did not mention the cost issues that the Chinese Academy of Sciences Documentation and Information Center focused on, but they were still the focus of public opinion on April 19.
"In recent years, CNKI has been controversial due to its high subscription and usage costs. In addition to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, including Peking University, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Taili Engineering and other 'double first-class' universities have been discontinued due to CNKI price increases and high subscription fees. On April 19, a commentator article on Guangming Network pointed out that in stark contrast to the high royalties of tens of millions, CNKI did not give academic product producers the respect they deserved. Extremely low-priced copyright royalties, the author of the paper himself needs to pay for downloading CNKI, and more than 100 papers such as Zhao Dexin, a retired professor of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, have been included without any fees.
According to the article, CNKI under this performance has almost manipulated the academic resource market, formed a de facto monopoly, and has long ceased to bear the public welfare responsibility of the literature database. Since it is market behavior, why is there no mechanism to ensure that buyers and sellers can play a reasonable game. In addition to the imperfect domestic intellectual property protection mechanism in the early years, the low cost of violating the law by the infringer, and the weak awareness of intellectual property rights, it should also be noted that the main producers of academic products have not united to "oppose" CNKI.
WeChat public account "Half Moon Talk" released on the 19th of the "CNKI's "hegemonic" charging logic, there should be a statement! " concluded that behind the repeated criticism of CNKI, it is nothing more than the word "fee".
The article said that as a knowledge infrastructure and public welfare platform, CNKI should and must reflect a certain public welfare attribute. But it backfired. At present, CNKI's profit-making impulse is, to some extent, shifting it from the role of "stepping stone" that originally facilitated academic development to the role of "stumbling block" that hinders academic development.
The half-moon article believes that in the face of the wave after wave of controversy caused by CNKI and the negative impact on China's scientific research and scholarship, the education, science and technology authorities and market supervision departments cannot wait to ignore it. How to assess CNKI's charging behavior, whether CNKI is suspected of industry monopoly, and how to rectify related issues, these focus issues of social concern must be answered. If CNKI is allowed to run wild on the road of monopoly, and if public opinion is allowed to ferment again and again without any disease, it will be the enthusiasm of scholars and academic progress that will be hurt in the end.
The Paper noted that on the evening of April 18, @People's Daily had already "discussed the arguments" in a short commentary on the matter.
@People's Daily commented: The Chinese Academy of Sciences stopped CNKI due to nearly 10 million renewal fees, and once again threw CNKI into the crater. The origin of the incident still needs to be bottomed out, and CNKI is accused of taking advantage of its "monopoly" position but it is not news. Knowledge is priceless and fees are well-founded, but it is indeed necessary for a business model to repeatedly collide with the public interest, frequently beat the hearts and minds of the world,and even play the law from time to time. How to balance the relationship between commercial profit and public interest, there should be a statement!
On April 19, the WeChat public account "Chickasaw Island" was also added to the discussion.
The public number published on the same day "The Chinese Academy of Sciences can't afford to use it, why is CNKI so bullish?" The article pointed out that from the latest information published by the Chinese government procurement network, the major universities in China have spent a lot on the purchase of CNKI services. In order to purchase CNKI's 2022 services, Nanjing University and Southeast University took out 1.034 million yuan, Wuhan University of Technology paid 1.2785 million yuan, and Tsinghua University spent 1.8803 million yuan... Originally, with more content, full data, and good service, it was not impossible to ask for an appropriate price. However, almost all of CNKI's users and resource providers are universities and research institutes, and the upstream and downstream are the same group of people. This group made academic achievements, looked back and wanted to download, and actually had to pay others. Sounds somewhat ridiculous.
For the reasons for cnki's frequent price increases, such as "CNKI is not only a service provider of universities, but also a purchaser of journal resources, many resources are exclusive, and there are many expensive foreign language materials, and the cost of resources is relatively high." With the increase of copyright awareness, good journals become more and more expensive, coupled with other costs of the company, the quotation has risen", the Chickasaw Island article believes that there is a certain truth, but it is difficult to convince the public.
According to the article, academic achievements are public, and CNKI sells data integration, arrangement, retrieval and retrieval services, and earns channel fees and service fees. According to CNKI itself, there is a higher cost in copyright when purchasing journal resources, and universities and research institutes and teachers and students who can be the creators of academic resources should have obtained corresponding channels and preferential treatment when using the resources contributed by their own institutions and institutions? After all, CNKI did not pay the necessary copyright fees to individuals and research institutes of universities when collecting resources.
Around the solution of the idea, the above article of Guangming Network said that CNKI itself is a successful Chinese literature database, and its position in the academic resource market is unshakable. This can be seen from the fact that almost all universities, libraries, and scientific research institutes in China will purchase CNKI services. However, after obtaining this convenience, the main producers of academic products such as universities and scientific research institutes did not unite to maintain their rights, thus forming a paradoxical situation in which they could not have an equal dialogue with CNKI, and even let CNKI dare to arbitrarily increase prices without fear of user cancellation.
The article calls on universities, libraries, and research institutes, which are the main producers of academic products, to unite and break the monopoly of academic resources from CNKI. The informatization construction of colleges and universities has been carried out for many years, which means that universities and universities can directly communicate information and share academic resources without having to go through CNKI. Of course, this process requires energy and financial resources, but the cost is obviously much lower than the tens of millions of subscription costs of CNKI. Let the competitors in the academic resource market become more numerous and stronger, and CNKI will be able to feel the power from the market elimination and make changes as soon as possible.
The Chickasaw Island article proposes that CNKI is not the creator of academic papers, and does the high fee match its role as a collection platform? Should the accounts be clearer? Why don't you clearly tell everyone which link of money you make, rather than a paper asking price to open out, love to buy or not to buy to listen to the honorable poop? Buyers such as universities should also "calculate the big account and calculate the general ledger", and may wish to try to "spell the order" and "group purchase". Government departments can explore "collective procurement" and "subsidies". But in the final analysis, CNKI should be reasonably priced, do not do overlord business. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to reduce the cost of using academic resources, provide convenience to users, and accelerate the progress of Chinese academic research?