The Elsevier boycott one year on
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/the-elsevier-boycott-one-year-on/
"""
A few days ago was the anniversary of the beginning of the Cost of
Knowledge boycott of Elsevier. It seems a good moment to take stock of what
the boycott has achieved and to think about what progress has or hasnbt
been made since it started. This post is a short joint statement by many of
the people who signed the original Cost of Knowledge statement last year.
At some point in the not too distant future I plan to write a longer post
giving a more personal view.
The Elsevier boycott: where do we now stand?
In the first few months after the boycott started, the number of
signatories grew very rapidly. The growth is now much slower, but this was
to be expected: given that, for understandable reasons, no editorial boards
of Elsevier journals were ready to take the drastic step of leaving
Elsevier, it was inevitable that further progress would depend on the
creation of new publication models, which takes time and work, much of it
not in the public eye. We are very pleasantly surprised by how much
progress of this kind there has already been, with the setting up of Forum
of Mathematics, a major new open-access journal, and the recent
announcement of the Episciences Project, a new platform for overlay
journals. We are also pleased by the rapid progress made by the wider Open
Access movement over the last year.
In one respect the boycott has been an unqualified success: it has helped
to raise awareness of the concerns we have about academic publishing. This,
we believe, will make it easier for new publishing initiatives to succeed,
and we strongly encourage further experimentation. We believe that
commercial publishers could in principle play a valuable role in the future
of mathematical publishing, but we would prefer to see publishers as
b service providersb: that is, mathematicians would control journals,
publishers would provide services that mathematicians deemed necessary, and
prices would be kept competitive since mathematicians would have the option
of obtaining these services elsewhere.
We welcome the moves that Elsevier made last year in the months that
followed the start of the boycott: the dropping of support for the Research
Works Act, the fact that back issues for many journals have now been made
available, a clear statement that authors can post preprints on the arXiv
that take into account comments by referees, and some small price
reductions. However, the fundamental problems remain. Elsevier still has a
stranglehold over many of our libraries as a result of Big Deals (a.k.a.
bundling) and this continues to do real damage, such as forcing them to
cancel subscriptions to more independent journals and to reduce their
spending on books. There has also been no improvement in transparency: it
as hard as ever to know what libraries are paying for Big Deals. We
therefore plan to continue boycotting Elsevier and encourage others to do
the same.
The problem of expensive subscriptions will not be solved until more
libraries are prepared to cancel subscriptions and Big Deals. To be an
effective negotiating tactic this requires support from the community: we
must indicate that we would be willing to put up with cancelling overly
expensive subscriptions. The more papers are made freely available online
(e.g., through the arXiv), the easier that will be. Many already are, and
we regard it as a moral duty for mathematicians to make their papers
available when publishers allow it. Unfortunately, since mathematics papers
are bundled together with papers in other subjects, real progress on costs
will depend on coordinated action by mathematicians and scientists, many of
whom have very different publication practices. However, a statement by
mathematicians that they would not be unduly inconvenienced by the
cancelling of expensive subscriptions would be a powerful one.
We are well aware that the problems mentioned above are not confined to
Elsevier. We believe that the boycott has been more successful as a result
of focusing attention on Elsevier, but the problem is a wider one, and many
of us privately try to avoid the other big commercial publishers. We
realize that this is not easy for all researchers. When there are more
alternatives available, it will become easier: we encourage people to
support new ventures if they are in a position do so without undue risk to
their careers.
We acknowledge that there are differing opinions about what an ideal
publishing system would be like. In particular, the issue of article
processing charges is a divisive one: some mathematicians are strongly
opposed to them, while others think that there is no realistic alternative.
We do not take a collective position on this, but we would point out that
the debate is by no means confined to mathematicians: it has been going on
in the Open Access community for many years. We note also that the
advantages and disadvantages of article processing charges depend very much
on the policies that journals have towards fee waivers: we strongly believe
that editorial decisions should be independent of an authorbs access to
appropriate funds, and that fee-waiver policies should be designed to
ensure this.
To summarize, we believe that the boycott has been a success and should be
continued. Further success will take time and effort, but there are simple
steps that we can all take: making our papers freely available, and
supporting new and better publication models when they are set up.
Doug Arnold, John Baez, Folkmar Bornemann, Danny Calegari, Henry Cohn,
Ingrid Daubechies, Jordan Ellenberg, Marie Farge, David Gabai, Timothy
Gowers, Michael Harris, FrC)dC)ric HC) lein, Rolf Jeltsch, Rob Kirby, Vincent
Lafforgue, Randall J. LeVeque, Peter Olver, Olof Sisask, Terence Tao,
Richard Taylor, Nick Trefethen, Marie-France Vigneras, Wendelin Werner,
GC