8 ms·
If UCLA were serious it would simply walk from the negotiation. THAT would send a message to all parties. It might actually spur some action on the part of fac
by apo 8y ago
If UCLA were serious it would simply walk from the negotiation.
THAT would send a message to all parties. It might actually spur some action on the part of faculty to get off their collective backsides and consider how every day they perpetuate an unsustainable system of scientific communication.
This letter and others like it are moves by third-rate negotiators. Faculty who make publication and review decisions simply don't care about the cost of subscriptions enough. If they did, Elsevier would be on the ropes, not calling the shots.
The letter UCLA sent out will receive widespread acclaim by a vocal minority, and go ignored by everyone else.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> This letter and others like it are moves by third-rate negotiators They're perfectly fine negotiators. They just aren't negotiating for open access, but using the threat of defection to extract better terms from Elsevier. That is both rational and achieves, in part and indirectly, one of the open access movement's aims: to reduce the power of journals like Elsevier.
- apo 8y agoThe problem is that this tactic actually empowers Elsevier. Without a credible threat to the status quo, nobody at UCLA or any other university has any reason to change what they're doing. It's hard to imagine anyone at Elsevier falling for this bluff. They probably came in with a 40% increase knowing they'd only get 20%. After the letter, they drop the increase to 20%, then everyone claims victory and goes home. But each round in which the OA card is played makes the bluff that much less credible.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> this tactic actually empowers Elsevier Power and profits are closely entangled. UCLA is extracting better pricing from Elsevier's weakened position as result of open-access competition. > it's hard to imagine anyone at Elsevier falling for this bluff What makes you think it was a bluff? When one threatens defection, one doesn't want to defect. That's why the defection is initially threatened, not acted upon.
- drb91 8y agoWhat do you consider credible?
- dfgert 8y agoUCLA and other universities are in trouble because of their own doing. They relied on one publishing system and allowed it to grow so big that now this system is mishandling them for its own profit. Had they been more cautious of implications of their actions they would have avoided current situation. University should immediately back out of negotiations as what they desire(open access) would never be fulfilled by publisher whose sole mean of income relies on subscription costs and search for/or build an truly open access communication system. Entering into another long-term contract with Elsevier would further delay the much needed reforms in currently unsustainable scientific publication process.
- matt4077 8y agoThis mixture of self-confidence and uninformedness is somewhat sad. As but one POI: open access also costs money, and Elsevier runs several open access or mixed journals.
- cjensen 8y agoUCLA can't walk out and Elsivier knows it. A University which lacks a library containing the currently published scholarship is going to have a really tough time attracting PhD students. How are they supposed to cite relevant work without being able to read the work? The UC System should work with other schools to mandate open publishing. The only way to fix this is by removing Elsevier's power.
- shmel 8y ago>>How are they supposed to cite relevant work without being able to read the work? Sci-hub?
- lixtra 8y agoDoes UCLA filter scihub? A better solution to the closed access problem would be to only cite open access articles. Sometimes that would mean not citing the original article but some open access meta article that made the findings publicly accessible. I actually think it’s fair to not cite articles that you cannot reach with reasonable effort. It’s the authors choice to make it inaccessible.
- ansible 8y agoMoreover, it is my understanding that if there's a good paper you want to get, you can often just contact one of the authors and get sent a copy. It is slower and less convenient, but maybe not $10 million a year less convenient...
- new299 8y agoPeople regularly don’t respond to those emails. For older publications it might be hard to even find the email. In the UK, you can order a photocopy of any journal paper via inter library loans. These often come from the British library, which has everything. I’d assume elsewhere similar solutions exist. Spending money on automating that process, and you might put most journals out of business.
- 8y ago
- skosuri 8y agoWell I'm on the UCLA faculty and it's definitely being discussed pretty widely amongst my department.
- apo 8y agoGood to know. How many faculty have indicated in these discussions that they will materially change their behavior?
- skosuri 8y agoEmail discussion started yesterday; amongst 20 or so faculty half a dozen agreed to not review. We'll probably discuss at the next faculty meeting or the holiday party that's about to start.
- klopthrow 8y agoWhat are drawbacks to their careers from agreeing not to review? I understand that reviewing is really a community service and done without tangible or much intengible compensation. And reviewing is anonymous. For tenured professors, there should be few problems and Elsevier probably wont retaliate, or will they? What are reasons for the controversay besides academic freedom?
- skosuri 8y agoHonestly nothing really. It’s more that there are papers that I am often the best person to review them (because of particular expertise). I often just don’t pay attention to where it’s coming from.
- klopthrow 8y agoUCLA may not have the power to walk away completely by itself. Outside research grants depend on publications in top journals and a single university still need those names. What if bigger entities negotiate together? European nations, NIH, NSF, major foundations and UC system can propose creating top journals to compete with Elsevier. Or direct their grant recipients to publish in alternative open access journals. Funders hold research money and universities grant prestige and job security. Elsevier is a big gatekeeper for both. If funders and universities work together, they can topple the status quo.
- hyperbovine 8y agoYou seem to blame this squarely on the faculty, and yet faculty have the least amount of freedom when it comes to publication venue. It's an unfortunate fact that academic success is inextricably linked to publishing in top journals. I'm not just talking about promotion either -- it's getting grants, compensation, being invited to speak, attracting students and postdocs, ensuring that they get a job later on, having an impact and generally receiving recognition from your peers. All of this is tied to a steady stream of publications in good journals. If Elsevier owns the best journals in your field, your options are to forego all that and hope for the best (works great if you are Tim Gowers or Terry Tao, for the rest of us...) or continue with the status quo. How many people would give up a career they've worked extremely hard to build to stand on principle? Very few. That is what you are asking of faculty here. It's sort of like global warming -- we know very well that the system is broken, but individually are powerless to change it. Concerted action at the national and international level is required.
- gerdesj 8y ago"It's sort of like global warming -- we know very well that the system is broken, but individually are powerless to change it. Concerted action at the national and international level is required." Unlike global warming I think that some individuals could really make a massive impact in this case. Funnily enough some of those individuals are studying global warming. There are already moves at (larger than individual) levels to get to grips with this issue and I think that most affected parties are more than capable of getting to the knowledge source somehow through alternative means when required. If not, then they are in the wrong game. FFS: Studies that are funded by tax payers or charities or whatever should be freely available. Studies that are peer reviewed by unpaid experts in the field should be published freely. I am happy to pay for journalism - that is something different.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Gibbon1 8y ago"Studies that are peer reviewed by unpaid experts in the field should be published freely" Unasked question: How does Elsevier a for profit business get away with having salaried UCLA professors review articles for free?
- notatcomputer68 8y agoI think you are misreading the situation. Rather than a weak move, this is a small step in a long march. They are killing Elsevier but slowly enough to avoid disruption.