[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott

Fri Jul 3 21:03:03 BST 2015

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
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] on behalf of Christian Gutknecht [christian.gutknecht at 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 <yn235 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:yn235 at 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-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-bounces at 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 at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150703/e8777eef/attachment-0001.html 