• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Elsevier Publishing Boycott Gathers Steam Among Academics

January 30, 2012, 6:50 pm

The eminent mathematician Timothy Gowers vows to do no work for Elsevier.

Elsevier, the global publishing company, is responsible for The Lancet, Cell, and about 2,000 other important journals; the iconic reference work Gray’s Anatomy, along with 20,000 other books—and one fed-up, award-winning mathematician.

Timothy Gowers of the University of Cambridge, who won the Fields Medal for his research, has organized a boycott of Elsevier because, he says, its pricing and policies restrict access to work that should be much more easily available. He asked for a boycott in a blog post on January 21, and as of Monday evening, on the boycott’s Web site The Cost of Knowledge, nearly 1,900  scientists have signed up, pledging not to publish, referee, or do editorial work for any Elsevier journal.

The company has sinned in three areas, according to the boycotters: It charges too much for its journals; it bundles subscriptions to lesser journals together with valuable ones, forcing libraries to spend money to buy things they don’t want in order to get a few things they do want; and, most recently, it has supported a proposed federal law (called the Research Works Act) that would prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by its grant recipients freely available.

Hal Abelson, a professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an open-publishing advocate, signed the pledge and wrote that “With the moves of these megapublishers, we [are] seeing the beginning of monopoly control of the scholarly record.” Benjamin R. Seyfarth, an associate professor in the School of Computing at the University of Southern Mississippi, wrote that “nearly all university research is funded by the public and should be available for free.”

The idea has echoed around the academic blogosphere, picking up endorsements. Elsevier itself has remained silent, though it may release a statement on Tuesday. There are occasional defenders in the blog comments, such as this response to the blog Crooked Timber’s rallying cry for the boycott: “As a neuroscientist, Elsevier journals are an important factor in publication choice. Losing a crucial set of publication outlets to a poorly informed rally against this company will certainly damage the integrity of the scientific record in my field.”

This entry was posted in Libraries, Research, Teaching. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • lisanyu

    I don’t think I’ve been teaching long enough for “serious” burn out, but oddly enough I tend to feel small little bouts of burn out at the beginning of spring semester.  Maybe it’s the dreary weather, the post holiday let down, I don’t know, but I have a much harder time gearing up for spring classes than I do the fall.  To me even just the weather changing from summer to fall gets me excited for the upcoming semester.  I try to remember the feeling of going back to school myself and how excited I was and that helps a bit as well.

  • translog

    Interesting contrast between the passion for teaching work and its burinout  that resuelts in academic pain. I have observed this phenomenon on the campus in very diverse community or one who has been loaded to pilot the course and the program with revolutionary zeal

    More often than nor, we plunge into teaching our pet ideas and dogmas and the POVs that surround the community we live in. Let me a give you an example of student called as BP who had a reputation to shun books and reading. But driving him to seek experiential knowledge from a favorite hobby of nature photography and interest , he was the best to produce a research essay on REDWOODS of California forest that maintain the ecological balance along the western coast of USA and Canada. It is legacy that he left behind now.,

  • Catherine Anderson

    I find winter semester much more tiring than fall as well.  This year I’ve managed to get my heavier course load scheduled in the fall when I have more energy, so that when I’m worn out and blue from all the cold, grey weather at least I have the easier classes to teach.

  • crankycat

    Make sure my courses have built-in opportunities to be creative, both for me and for the students. I’ll change up approaches, try new assignments, bring in a different resource – and follow the class as much as they follow me. Synergism is a lovely thing.

  • rachel312

    Kind of makes you miss the good old days when the library would buy the paper journals, kindly put them in order, and you’d go sit in your little cubicle in the stacks and read up.  Wonder how much periodical and journal indexes costed to make and buy in comparison to contemporary information systems.  Can such a comparison even be made?  There’s no going back of course.  Not sure this boycott is the right thing, but if ANY information company is going to get zapped, Elsevier deserves it.

  • mbelvadi

    Don’t confuse indexes with full text journals, especially in the context of this article. Indexes, like PsycINFO, MLA Bibliography, etc. actually take quite a lot of expert human effort (e.g. assigning subject headings and other classification codes to each article) and the companies/organizations that make them actually do pay for that labour.

  • mbelvadi

    Timber’s “defense” is so weak that it points out just how unloved Elsevier is – there is no attempt to defend Elsevier’s business practices, but instead just offers the argument of Uncle Toms everywhere that we’re stuck being owned and to fight it is to risk what we have.

  • gharbisonne

    I just got an invitation to submit to a special issue of an open access journal. 750 Swiss Francs in page charges; I didn’t bother to check the exchange rate. I, an most of my peers, will publish in a journal that doesn’t assess charges on the author.

    It’s just a question of who pays for it; the people who want to read it, or the people who want to publish it. While it seems all noble to suggest that information be free, the fact is 99+% of the population doesn’t want to read 99+% of published research. It seems a bit much to ask that they pay for what they don’t want.

    The fact is, academics are the ones who get most of the advantage from scholarly publication, in terms of career advancement, grant funding, etc. The system rewards quantity over quality. And they are largely the ones who read (or in most cases, don’t read) the publications of others. Whether they pay to publish or pay to access it, it does seem logical that they be primarily responsible for pay for the exercise.

    Academic publishing is largely vanity publishing. It should use the same business model.

  • ContentShark

    “nearly all university research is funded by the public and should be available for free.”
    I like this idea. When will Mr. Seyfarth start giving away his lectures for free? When will tuition end? Oh wait. The game is to demonize the publishers to distract the people from the skyrocketing tuition.

    There’s no doubt that the academic community does much of the work to create these documents but they don’t do all of the work. If the universities don’t pay for the editorial work through subscriptions,they’ll end up paying for it by hiring proofreaders and layout artists in house. Given what I’ve seen of the university bureaucracies, I’m guessing that the journals may be cheap in comparison. Elsevere may be guilty of many sins, but so is the university.

  • procrustes

    High serials costs were a problem long before electronic journals.  The good old days, as always, were mostly good for those sheltered from the realities of life.

  • http://twitter.com/dacclibrary dacc library

    As a librarian from a small community college, I hope the boycott is successful. While I appreciate the content Elsevier provides, high journal prices make it so prohibitive for small institutions like mine to provide our students with access to major journals.

  • tulsadean

    @chronicle-f44d32d82b5cf4680d8a7cde867cc32f:disqus – The issue of journal price inflation amongst large scholarly publishers such as Elsevier existed long before electronic publishing came along. Libraries were struggling with double-digit annual price increases from Elsevier in particular as far back as the 1980s, but they are not alone. There is plenty of data in the library science literature on journal pricing trends that goes back more than 30 years.

  • simon_horsman

    1. Let’s recognise that this is a very difficult problem with multiple stakeholders and incommensurate interests.
    2. It’s probably unhelpful to insist on all journals being treated in the same way.
    3. We are seeing classic monopoly behaviours, possibly in some kind of complex nested structure. Senior academics “boost their ratings” by restricting what gets published – just think of the waiting lists to get into these journals!  And the profit-seeking companies are anxious to use their monopoly power to maximise their profits. – if they do not want to, their shareholders will push them to ensure they do.  Governments are happy to use the ratings of the various journals to direct and ration research funds.

  • elizyates

    @chronicle-c5c188a23bfd68d8e5a3358137f6f306:disqus — “Whether they pay to publish or pay to access it, it does seem logical
    that they be primarily responsible for pay for the exercise”
    If only it really was an either/or scenario. The real sting of academic publishing is the two-pronged money grab: scholars are charged to publish and then libraries are charged exorbitant amounts of money to buy the journals showcasing the very same research done at their own institution. Our journal costs are constantly skyrocketing — increases of 500 per cent a year are not unusual. It is not sustainable and it forces us to make tough decisions about what to cut so that we can afford the  “must-have” journals demanded by our faculty members.
    The academic publishing system desperately needs reform. If this boycott helps, that’s wonderful.

  • Mike Taylor

    “The company has sinned in three areas … It
    charges too much for its journals; it bundles subscriptions to lesser
    journals together with valuable ones, forcing libraries to spend money
    to buy things they don’t want … it has supported a proposed federal law (called the
    Research Works Act)
    that would prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from
    making all articles written by its grant recipients freely available.”

    Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg.  They have also published fake journals that misrepresented sponsored content as legitimate research, been involved in the arms trade, repeatedly obstructed the re-use of data, made campaign contributions to representatives to propose the Research Works Act and then fed those representatives the very words they want them to say in support of it, and now they have started suing their own customer libraries for delivering document to their patrons.

    Really.  They have done pretty much everything they can to alienate their authors, editors, peer-reviewers, customers and employees.  The boycott is long overdue.  (And, yes, I have signed.)

    Dr. Michael P. Taylor
    Research Associate
    University of Bristol, ENGLAND

  • shawnmehan

    Assessing charges on authors is not new practice; I recall fees of $100 / page and $1000 / page for color, in the Astrophysics Journal [AAS: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X ] in the 1990 timeframe, and that was with you paying your dues to be a member of the AAS to get your copy at extra rates, let alone the subscription rate for libraries. So there is an esteemed journal thirty years ago getting it at both ends! 

    As for vanity publishing, I don’t think that you can tar all journals with that brush fairly. Academics are by far the ones getting the benefit of publication, both by publishing their work or by reading the work of others. That’s how society makes scientific progress in any fashion other than coincidental discovery. Tycho Brahe evven had a plant manufacturing paper near his observatory for the purpose of pushing out his results to the the then known academic community.

    Writing one’s results is not the issue here. It is the high costs associated with the publishing industry. And Elsevier is not new to criticism: http://bit.ly/xlAZ4R.

  • shawnmehan

    Is the typo subtle sarcasm or delicious irony?

  • http://twitter.com/cyberrandt Helen Wybrants

    Watching with interest..

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Q2OXIFHPZ6D6UJKTZKKHPFWWVM CharlesP

    Folks need to understand the roots of this crisis — and that can only go back to Robert Maxwell, the media tycoon, and his control/manipulation of the scientific press.  This whole thing that has turned scholarly journals into enormous cash cows has its roots in the growth/collapse of his publishing empire, and all the corruption surrounding it.  Whether we like it or not, we are implicit by supporting Elsevier and pleading ignorance of the complex criminal media politics around its ownership.

  • cwinton

    It strikes me that Elsevier needs a new business model since the company appears to be clinging to an increasingly expensive model based on print journals, which is quite rightly angering their customer base, and concomitantly producing a scenario that can’t be good for the long term health of the company.  Other publishers offer on-line subscriptions, more general access accounts for libraries at a reasonable fee, and economical pay per download for individual technical articles.  I gather Elsevier is not taking a cue from them?  If a boycott is what is needed to get Elsevier to change its business practices, more power to the customers.

  • smencil

    Why do the journal charge so much?  As a professor, I produce the research for free to the journal, and I provide editing through the peer review process that is also free to them.  Their costs seem to be based on formatting the articles and publishing them.  Why should this cost a lot?

    Whole books cost less than a single article and those publishers have to pay the authors and editors. 

  • sbeas1

    “While it seems all noble to suggest that information be free, the fact
    is 99+% of the population doesn’t want to read 99+% of published
    research. It seems a bit much to ask that they pay for what they don’t
    want.”

    “Whether they pay to publish or pay to access it, it does seem logical
    that they be primarily responsible for pay for the exercise. ”

    I think the biggest rub with respect to Elsevier is its support for the Research Works Act which would prevent U.S. government agencies from requiring a mandate for deposit of articles in open access repositories. US tax payers have funded the research projects which are reported in scholarly journals. In essence they have already funded the articles that are the outcome of the research; in the case of public universities, many of the researchers salaries are paid with public dollars – the taxpayer has paid twice.

     

  • manoflamancha

    This has been a festering sore for sometime, and many a brave academic have been sued and threatened to be sued by Elsevier. In those bad old days when Robert Maxwell was king of science publishing, an illegal monoploy existed with impunity (by the way, who killed Maxwell?).

    Behind all this corruption in publishing was university policy, which forced many great teachers, but mediocre reseachers, to “Publish or Perish”. This plethora of rubbish is mixed intimately with the good stuff, so libraries, and the rest of us must pay. The quest by newly empowered third world countries, namely China and India, has only added more rubbish to the pile, with more work in reviewing by the rest of us. The boycott is fine, but it will not resolve the problem of excessive crap being allowed to move forward by tired, or lazy, reviewers. We need a new model, not formulated by business groups, but by the professions that promote and perform the research to be published. 

  • bigfruitbasket

    Elsevier has one of the worst reputations amongst librarians.  We agreed to big deals to get to the journals that everyone wants and every other junk journal comes with the deal.  They limit their increases in price to 5% per year, knowing full well that state budgets are down 10-15%.  Then, their sales rep has the audacity to try and convince us that a 5% increase is really a flat or 0% increase.  Elsevier always takes the max increase per year, no matter what.  They’re worse than loan sharks.  After renewal talks with the sales rep, you sometimes feel the need to take a shower to get rid of the stink of another bad deal.

  • http://twitter.com/DavidJTerrell David Terrell

    Hard to find balance between profit and freedom

  • bfrank1

    Ah, Elsevier! The Great Satan of publishing! “They Who Must Not Be Named”, casting  Death Eaters across the benign landscape of academia. If only it were so simple. Commercial STEM publishing is like the ‘spherical trust’ of the old Sci-Fi novel The Space Merchants – the engine of research (and tenure) requires the fuel of published papers, created through (largely) public funding, which revs up the economy (on average, and in bulk, this is actually the case – used a smart phone or watched a flat screen tv lately?), resulting in more funding and more papers (in more, newer journals) and more career researchers who need to prove their worth, etc. But the authors are doing the writing and editing and reviewing for free, mostly, and the libraries are the instrument of co-dependency, and the stock-holders and pension funds want dividends. Oh My!
    Meanwhile, US Federal publishing is coming apart at the seams as agencies deal with declining interest in speading the cost of disseminating public information by shifting everything to badly designed, obfuscating and underfunded web sites, putting the onus on the reader to possess sufficient technology, bandwidth and skills to get to it.
    What’s our hero to do? How to cut the Gordian knot? Is it the profit motive of the free market that we decry? (Do I dare to eat a peach?) Or is the first obstacle to significant reform the drive to quantify the evaluation of scientists and their work so that administrators and others who are not actually qualified to judge (que the legislature!) can point to a ranked list and punish the underperforming? We can’t have it both ways – without all the journal price increases of the 90′s, the technology for e-journal distribution would likely not exist today – does anyone want to go back? I thought not. If the Evil Ones are so bad, why have they been so successful at talking editorial boards into giving up their sovereignty to build such huge portfolios of middling titles? Could it be because they promise services and deliver?
    Unless everyone writes and publishes less, or everyone is prepared to move to a system like ArXive, or give up the slick finished products and false illusions of quantifying quality with an integer of some sort, in otherwords, unless everyone wants to work a lot harder for a uglier system with more uncertainty and less exposure, this doesn’t amount to much. Elsevier (and competitors) are mostly lesser demons of Mammon, still triumphant after millenia of mostly feeble protest.

  • salchaktoka

    “As a neuroscientist, Elsevier journals are an important factor in publication choice.”

    You’d think the Elsevier shill could at least write a correct sentence. 

  • http://twitter.com/ksetzekorn Kristina Setzekorn

    Publisher disintermediation?  They provide comparatively little, especially in this era of electronic publishing, to the academic journal and textbook value chain. Scholars provide the intellectual content and peer review.  Besides layout, what value do publishers provide to justify their prices?

  • deadgenome -.,.-*`*-.,.-*`*-

    If academic publishing is doing it’s job properly then surely it is the general society as a whole that gets the most benefit. Is a bit like the argument that students should pay for all of their education because they are the ones who benefit, whereas in reality the largest group that benefits from higher education is the mass of people who have not acquired those skills and so rely on the minority who have.

    If you doubt this, ask yourself who really benefits the most from medical training, for example.

  • shawnmehan

    Hmm. There is much in here which I can’t, or shan’t, comment on. But to claim that e-journal distribution would likely not exist today were it not for the journal price increases in the 90′s is, well, sir, laughable. CMS/DMS (which is what e-journal distribution will be based on) along with better IdM and federated search, has had little, if anything, to do with publisher investments. Any investments they made was to leverage existing technologies or technology patterns into their own folds to control their own markets. I shall supply a non-exhaustive list of words that you can google at your own leisure to learn something of the history of this movement: CMS, PHP, JOOMLA, DRUPAL, PDF, SAML, SHIBBOLETH, GUANXI, OASPA, … I could go on. A couple of links as well, in case google doesn’t work for you: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Free_and_open-source_journal_management_software
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Journal_Systems

    None of these are a result of investment from private publishing houses. And I know, because I have worked on several of them myself.

  • shawnmehan

    They are also facilitating peer review, and production and distribution to libraries!

  • shawnmehan

    Why? Elsevier routinely edits the shill’s work to make it fit for academic consumption. Damn open forums with no moderation or editing! If there was only an editor in this process to ensure quality! For that, Sir, I would gladly pay a fee!

  • jdmartin1980

    This topic relates to an article I wrote a few months back for The Chronicle, discussing my flagging enthusiasm in writing, uncompensated, for profiteering journals. http://chronicle.com/article/Tired-of-Writing-for-No-Money/127767/

  • rightwingprofessor

    Sweet, the more people who boycott the easier it will be to get my work accepted in Elsevier’s wonderful journals!

  • shawnmehan

    Look, Mommy! A troll!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Bain/1357862205 Robert Bain

    Greed. Mayans said we would be destroyed by our creations. I wonder what the long term affects of cell phone usage are. Greed once again.

  • blogademician

    I’m just glad to have read an article about a boycott without mention of the word “occupy.” Long live academe!

  • thmed

    The point is not that information, or the process of creating it or disseminating it, doesn’t cost – but whether those who pay for the research should have to pay again for the results.  If you’re a US citizen and the government funds research with your tax dollars it makes sense that you should not have to pay again for access to that research. The current law gives publishers a year (I may be wrong about the time frame) to be the exclusive source before an article based on government funded research in the health sciences will be made available on PubMed Central.

    As a librarian I can cite many reasons I dislike having to deal with Elsevier, and think their opposition to this reasonable law makes them deserving of a boycott.  However, I also know that if I cancelled all my subscriptions to Elsevier journals and products I’d have a student and faculty riot on my hands. Elsevier’s grip on the scientific and library communities purse strings will only be loosened when researches publish in other journals making the Elsevier journals less demanded and of lesser value.

  • http://twitter.com/manuelmoeg Manuel Moe Garcia

    Crazy that Elsevier has a business model based on uncompensated reviewing and editorship from academics, the same academics who have first or second-hand reports of academic research frustrated by the naked greed of Elsevier.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=511660008 Joe Escalante

    Elsevier is doing something just as bad to the artistic community. A punk band in California created a  parody of one of their magazines logos. Elsevier has been suing the four musicians since 2004, attempting to ruin their lives after already ruining their careers. Read about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-escalante/sopa-copyright_b_1222058.html or on Huffington Post , or at http://www.vandals.com/Vandals/Description_of_Lawsuit.html The Vandals will help spread the boycott!

  • manoflamancha

    I hate it when someone steals my archaic words (according to socratease2), but go ahead with it and shill out, since there are many pitchmen out there in blogland.

  • crm114

    Welcome to the world of M&A… so loved by Wall Street and so bad for the American consumer… and now academia. Just part of the monopolization of all sectors of our economy. Bend over and receive your sentence.

  • mbelvadi

    They aren’t clinging to an old print business model – I’m not sure if they pioneered it, but they are among the top 3 purveyors of what librarians call “Big Deals” – a controversial pricing model for strictly electronic journal sales to libraries. Google “university library big deal” to learn more about them.

  • http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ Stevan Harnad

    THOSE WHO IGNORE HISTORY…
    I am haunted by a “keystroke koan”:”Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles – when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?”Not only has 100% OA been reachable through self-archiving as of at least 1994, but over 90% of journals have even given author self-archiving their explicit green light. Over 60% of them, including Elsevier — have given their green light to self-archive the refereed final draft (“postprint”) immediately upon acceptance for publication…So why are researchers again boycotting instead of keystroking?http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/
    Pogo: We have seen the enemy, and he is us…
    http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3878.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Amanda-Briggs/582645336 Amanda Briggs

    The fight back’s on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/E-Elaine-Connelly/100000106663068 E Elaine Connelly

    I work at a University.  I used to perform the lovely task of going to Elsevier’s site and entering information for one of the professor(s) to request the reprint be either digitally available or get a few hard copies (100 or more) for anyone that wanted them.   Elsevier is very expensive, and their publishing leaves a lot to be desired.   Plus if you have ever gone to their site, and brought up their employee listing (huge).   Each one of these people get paid way more than they are worth.

  • sternbern

    I’d suggest similar arguments for medicine, much of the R&D has ALREADY been paid for by tax payers from government grants, so why should they/we be fleeced a second time by over 1000% price hikes from drug companies claiming to recoup their costs? SECOND: Please, while the content of most of our journals is high caliber, the actual published materials is PAINFULLY plain, no pictures, no fancy designs, just words and charts on white paper. WE do the reviewing, writing, and often much of the editing. How, then, is such a high price justified, especially with the move to electronic formats. I would think we academics could come up with a simple self-governed sollution and skip the pricing and corporate interests all together.

  • sternbern

    Actually, that second idea keeps nagging at me. We already see wikipedia and the like taking off, I am curious how many would actually be interested in a self-governed academic free repository of information? Perhaps this is an idea whose time has come.

  • bposside

    Why isn’t there an academic equivalent of iTunes where anyone can download any article for $0.99 as an alternative to a subscription- a hybrid model somewhere between online/open access and 
    subscription-based access? 

  • loralane

    Good idea bposside.))

  • James Manis

    Indeed, capacity to revolutionize the publishing industry exists at your fingertips. All that’s needed is a concerted, organized effort to do it.

    The commenter who identified the shift taking place during the 1980s is spot on. That’s the period when publishing houses were being bought up by conglomerates run by those whose sole interest was in the bottom line at the end of each business cycle.

    Take publishing to the web and bypass those whose interest is only the 90-day business cycle. This site itself is proof that it can be done. Every university has the capacity to become a publisher, and most if not all already are. It is simply sheer laziness that allows the current system of publishing to continue.

  • http://twitter.com/AndreaRippon Andrea Rippon

    I believe that none of us is as smart as all of us. Some questions.  Who is research for?  Is there ‘too much information’?  How will I know? 

  • brett long

    Credit to Mr. Gowers for the effort of taking a stand.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stewart-Lyman/1382697024 Stewart Lyman

    Actually, an iTunes type model for accessing the academic literature has been proposed and it’s called iPubSci. The basic concept is a blend of PubMed with iTunes, with a number of built-in software enhancements (e.g. ability to be automatically be notified if a downloaded paper was retracted). The key advantage of iPubSci compared to other models out there is that it would allow affordable access to the entire literature, including the approximately 2/3 of papers that are not available for free in PubMed. iPubSci was designed to provide easy, affordable, and legal access to the scientific literature. Those wanting more information can visit the iPubSci website at http://www.ipubsci.com, or you can read the rationale behind the concept in the article iPubSci: An Alternative to Unaffordable Science Journals at http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2011/12/05/ipubsci-a-solution-to-the-problem-of-unaffordable-science-journals/?single_page=true

  • eech1234

    because researchers will spend 30 hours tracking down a bug in LaTeX but not 30 minutes debugging a website.

  • drklassen

     Editing, yes, costs.  But much of that work (through peer review) is done for free.  I find it VERY difficult to figure that $1000/page is the actual cost of editing.  Or even of editing and electronic typesetting (especially given that the major journals will give you a [La]TeX style file that will do 95% of the typesetting).  The biggest costs are the paper and the printing.  But with most folks wanting only PDF versions, even that cost is approaching zero.

  • drklassen

     Assumes one *needs* a profit from research dissemination.

  • drklassen

     This is a good point.  I’ve published in and Elsevier journal.  I’ve merrily signed the copyright contract knowing full well I didn’t give a flying fig what it was saying because I was going to do whatever I wanted to do anyway.  Currently, Elsevier explicitly allows you to self-distribute your own papers electronically, so long as it just isn’t *their* produced PDF.  I signed that contract too…  :)

  • anmalik

    And how many professors are paid what they are worth?  Seems to me that all over the western economies all are paid more than they are ‘worth’. Academe is a particularly egregious case, where as in medicine people go supposedly for the public good and then demand very high prices from society, be it private or public sources.

    I say that most research that is funded by the government (ie taxpayer) grants must remain within the country, ie one must be a citizen of that country to access the research. Non-citizens must pay a varying price depending on the assigned ‘value’ to that research, some may even be available only to citizens of the originating country. (Corporations are people too, and would be subject to the same citizenship limitations; including ‘loyalty’ to their country of origin, ie of incorporation-HQ).

    Of the research that is available to the various categories of interested ‘consumers’ at whatever price, the ‘cost of publication’ should be factored in with the funding of the research, and so we are close to the ‘open’ idea. 

  • AmirKashani

    It’s not directly related, but Disqus will own all the comments including here on this article, at some point make money with it. And probably at some point start thinking about charging viewers and even writers.

  • wilbob45

    It’s called a monopoly.  They have also forced our university to mandate that nursing students purchase e-books.  They claim it costs less money than hard copy textbooks, since they sell them in a “bundle”.  The majority of students do not like the e-book format, but are not given a choice. 

  • kendavidson

    I agree that academic publishers charge prices that make books unavailable to ordinary readers.  I parted company with the distinguished publisher Edward Elgar because it intended to charge $120 a copy for my book, Reality Ignored.  It is now available on Amazon for $19.50 or less for the Kindle version.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kimberly.j.dodson Kimberly Jones Dodson

    I know journals are sometimes expensive but I don’t think this is exclusive to Elsevier. I work for Elsevier part-time and they pay me well and have always treated me fairly. However, I do respect Dr. Gowers right to boycott. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-K-Woodland/832230240 Lisa K Woodland

    Those paper journals are a beast to store.  You need to have the shelf space for them, which is an increasing problem in most libraries.  Decisions are always being made about what to keep and what to get rid of because of limited shelf space.  Electronic journals are the way forward, but paying most of the library’s budget just for subscriptions is ludicrous.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Theiss-Smith/611251373 Elizabeth Theiss Smith

    Database providers jack up the price of academic library subscriptions by unconscionable amounts yearly. I don’t see a reason that scholars need them as we develop the content and basically need simple mechanisms for sharing it broadly. No one except Elsevier stockholders and executives benefit from the current system. Given a choice between publishing in a free vs. a commercial journal, we all need to choose free.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ESV3XOBUZJ6D4GLGHEFTHJAUWQ Mark

    Easy solution, boycotters: just publish your papers for free on the internet—but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pvpmmocu-Mmorpg/100003099006084 Pvpmmocu Mmorpg

    High serials costs were a problem long before electronic journals.  The good old days, as always, were mostly good for those sheltered from the realities of life. http://www.m2kinq.com