[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott
Thomas I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is a systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the solution is to make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems such as RePEC being more user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing what is OA, instead of burying it among subscription-only contents. It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that it only has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned individually and while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to rule. Kudos to the Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I hope they succeed in getting a better deal. Éric -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent: July-03-15 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Danny Kingsley writes Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access. I guess the Summer silly season is here. As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up their post. It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary, presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters. If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier. This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch reviewers. After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier journals. Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not based on some boycott ideology. The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical argument. Recall the Public Library of Science. Before it became a publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the text from public view. By my impression it was completely ineffective. Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access publications. Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open access is achieved. In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a library-made problem. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott
Danny Kingsley writes Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access. I guess the Summer silly season is here. As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up their post. It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary, presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters. If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier. This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch reviewers. After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier journals. Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not based on some boycott ideology. The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical argument. Recall the Public Library of Science. Before it became a publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the text from public view. By my impression it was completely ineffective. Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access publications. Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open access is achieved. In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a library-made problem. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott
Hi all, I fail to see how this is a 'library made' problem in any sense. The issue is that for many of us, our purchasing decisions are dictated to by our faculty. Interestingly in the physical sciences at least, I am now being asked to review (by academics) whether we should subscribe to journals at all. Yvonne Thomas I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is a systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the solution is to make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems such as RePEC being more user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing what is OA, instead of burying it among subscription-only contents. It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that it only has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned individually and while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to rule. Kudos to the Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I hope they succeed in getting a better deal. Éric -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent: July-03-15 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Danny Kingsley writes Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access. I guess the Summer silly season is here. As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up their post. It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary, presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters. If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier. This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch reviewers. After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier journals. Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not based on some boycott ideology. The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical argument. Recall the Public Library of Science. Before it became a publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the text from public view. By my impression it was completely ineffective. Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access publications. Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open access is achieved. In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a library-made problem. -- Yvonne Nobis Head of Science Information Services Betty and Gordon Moore Library Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WD. Tel : 01223 765673 Central Science Library Bene't Street, Cambridge CB2 3PY. Tel (01223)334744 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott
Well said Marc, A) : about the proven ineffectiveness of boycotts. B) : about the best strategy to get Open Access : that is in self-archiving . And as you know it ;-) it's easy to ignore copyright restrictions in using the Button : http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268511/ Hélène Bosc - Original Message - From: Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 6:06 PM Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Hi all, I'm really doubtful as to the success of these boycotts, if success is defined as researchers actually following en masse. I see no indication that the previous (still in force?) Elsevier boycott (The Cost of Freedom) has hurt the publisher (maybe someone can provide evidence to the contrary). The same seems to have happened with Harold Varmus' Open Letter in 2000, signed by tens of thousands (it was not targeted at Elsevier but at all non-OA publishers, that is virtually all publishers at the time; see https://www.plos.org/about/plos/history). But I think these boycotts (or boycott threats) can play a role in raising among researchers the general awareness about the main issue at hand (OA and commercial publishers). It certainly helps me, for instance, convince colleagues that they shouldn't be bothered by Elsevier's recent moves to restrict its self-archiving policy. See https://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/the-elsevier-boycott-one-year-on for more elaborate thoughts on this subject. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott
I agree with Christian in the sense that librarians have a responsibility to their faculty to make them aware of the significant pricing disparity between non-profit society journals and commercially published journals. Most faculty are reasonable, especially when given solid data, when cancellation decisions must be made. Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Christian Gutknecht [christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:41 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Hi Indeed it's systemic problem, but libraries ever had the best options to make the transition happen, simply because they have the money. I pointed out that here: http://www.0277.ch/ojs/index.php/cdrs_0277/article/view/48/129 I think with the library budget there comes power and responsibility. However libraries are totally unaware of this power (if coordinated) and often are not willing take responsibility. Best regards Christian Am 03.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Y.Nobis yn...@cam.ac.ukmailto:yn...@cam.ac.uk: Hi all, I fail to see how this is a 'library made' problem in any sense. The issue is that for many of us, our purchasing decisions are dictated to by our faculty. Interestingly in the physical sciences at least, I am now being asked to review (by academics) whether we should subscribe to journals at all. Yvonne Thomas I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is a systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the solution is to make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems such as RePEC being more user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing what is OA, instead of burying it among subscription-only contents. It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that it only has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned individually and while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to rule. Kudos to the Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I hope they succeed in getting a better deal. Éric -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent: July-03-15 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Danny Kingsley writes Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access. I guess the Summer silly season is here. As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up their post. It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary, presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters. If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier. This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch reviewers. After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier journals. Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not based on some boycott ideology. The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical argument. Recall the Public Library of Science. Before it became a publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the text from public view. By my impression it was completely ineffective. Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access publications. Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open access is achieved. In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a library-made problem. -- Yvonne Nobis Head of Science Information Services Betty and Gordon Moore Library Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WD. Tel : 01223 765673 Central Science Library Bene't Street, Cambridge CB2 3PY. Tel (01223)334744 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL
