Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Why have so many academics decided to boycott Elsevier?
1. Why have so many
academics decided to
boycott Elsevier?
Nick Scott-Samuel
Experimental Psychology
University of Bristol
2. Acknowledgements
Deborah Apthorp
Lee de-Wit
Pete Etchells
Alex Holcombe
Amye Kenall
Tim Meese
Pete Thompson
Jon Peirce
Ian Thornton
3. Why I don’t like symposia
Oooh, yes! They’re very
Aren’t stripes interesting
nice?
Everyone’s
wearing
them, you
know…
etc.
4. This one is different (of course)
Why am I here?
CVNet post:
“I'm beginning to feel somewhat undecided about reviewing for
journals which aren't Open Access, and I wonder if this is an
uncertainty shared by the vision community.”
Large response (c.75 replies, not all to the list)
Majority anti-Elsevier
Interesting age profile
Discussion diverted into general issues about open access,
copyright etc.
5. A number of issues – all mixed up
Broadly, there are issues of principle, and issues about money
Naturally they overlap…
Principle
• Almost all research, directly or indirectly, is publicly
funded
• Access to this research should be free to those who paid
for it
• Therefore: open access
Money
• Academics provide free labour and content to publishers
• These publishers should pay us, or not make profits from
6. Issues of principle
I’m not really going to talk about these
I get the argument, but I don’t find it that compelling
I’m not sure how many members of the public have a great
interest in what we do
Of those that do, I don’t imagine many of them will get much
out of a Vision Research or Current Biology paper
These issues of principle may arise elsewhere in this session
7. A nice analogy for the financial issue
From Dorothy Bishop
<http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/time-for-academics-to-
withdraw-free.html>
“Jack is a sheep farmer. He gets some government subsidies, and also
works long hours to keep his sheep happy and healthy. When his
beasts are ready for slaughter, he offers them to an abattoir. The
abattoir is very choosy and may reject Jack’s sheep, which is a
disaster for him, as there is no other route to the market. If he is lucky
the abattoir will accept the animals, slaughter them and sell them, at a
large profit, to the supermarket. Jack does not see any of this money.
The populace struggle to afford the price of meat, but the government
has no control over this. When Jack feels like a nice piece of lamb, he
buys it from the supermarket. Meanwhile, Jack provides his services
for free as an inspector of other farmers’ animals.”
8. The publication process
I do some experiments
I write them up
I submit them to a journal for publication, with a snappy title:
“The effect of 3rd-order signals on 1st-order artefacts in 2nd-order
motion stimuli”
Off it goes!
9. Production
There is usually some editorial work, of variable quality
This stage is particularly useful for authors for whom English is
a second/third/etc. language
(although a significant minority of referees will undertake this
along with scientific review)
There may be some proofing and laying out of the text
(less so these days)
Figures are generally required to be formatted by the author
And then: publication!
10. Summary of publishing process
Who does what: Cost to journal:
I do some experiments Zero
I write them up Zero
I submit them to an editor Zero
Out to referees Zero
Editorial decision Zero
Proofing by journal Something
Formatting by journal Something
Publication by journal Something
So on this model of publishing, we academics generate the content,
organise the quality control and sometimes format the content
All for free
11. Why boycott only Elsevier?
These financial issues are common to all publishing companies
The process is pretty much the same wherever you go
So what’s so bad about Elsevier?
Elsevier exemplifies all the ills of this system
And it seems to manage to be a little more obviously worse than
everyone else
Here’s how…
12. Why boycott Elsevier? Profits
Operating profit margin, aka operating margin, aka operating
income margin, aka return on sales
= operating income / revenue
Bigger is better
5% Tesco
7% News Corporation
12% BMW
22% Coca Cola
36% Apple
36% Elsevier
13. Why boycott Elsevier? Cost
Although there’s no obvious dramatic increase in publication and
distribution costs, the cost of Elsevier journals keeps rising:
“MIT spending on serials increased by 426% over the period 1986-
2009, while the number of serials purchased decreased by 16%, and
the Consumer Price Index increased by only 96%.”
(Arnold & Cohn, 2012 <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1351v1.pdf>)
14. Why boycott Elsevier? Bundling
“Bundling” is putting journals you want with journals you don’t into
a sales package
Your librarians end up paying for the dross along with the good stuff
“Elsevier is among a handful of journal publishers whose
commercial bundling practices are squeezing library budgets. Their
licensing programs require libraries to maintain large, fixed levels of
expenditure, without the ability to cancel unneeded subscriptions.”
(Sidney Verba, Director of the University Library, Harvard
University, 2004)
15. Why boycott Elsevier? Secrecy
There’s a lack of transparency about pricing
This allows Elsevier to charge different institutions differing
amounts for the same thing
"Elsevier put a confidentiality clause in its contract with
Imperial so my librarian can’t tell me how much their
subscriptions cost!”
Stephen Curry, Imperial College, 2012
<http://blog.mysciencework.com/en/2012/08/20/stephen-curry-
on-open-access-post-finch.html>
To be fair, this is by no means uncommon in business – there are
plenty of other companies that do the same thing
But I don’t like it, and see no reason why business norms need to
16. Why boycott Elsevier? Deceit
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine
• Looks like a peer-reviewed journal but isn’t
• No peer review – reprints or summaries
• All with favourable data about Merck products
• One review article had two references in it…
• It appears to be a camouflaged marketing device for Merck
“It turns out that Elsevier put out six such journals, sponsored by
industry. The Elsevier chief executive, Michael Hansen, has now
admitted that they were made to look like journals, and lacked
proper disclosure. “This was an unacceptable practice and we regret
that it took place,” he said.”
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/bad-
science-medical-journals-companies>
17. How did this situation arise?
It’s a historical artefact
If publishing itself is expensive and difficult…
…a small cartel can can control it
If you own the only printing press in town, you have a nice
monopoly on publication
BUT
Most of us read things online nowadays
Publishing is cheaper, faster, easier
18. Is a boycott the right approach?
In mathematics, whole editorial boards have resigned and set up
alternatives to Elsevier journals
Journal of Logic Programming (1999)
Journal of Algorithms (2003)
Topology (2006)
19. Has the boycott had any effect?
In February this year, Elsevier withdrew its support for the Research
Works Act (this would have prohibited open access mandates for
government-funded research in the United States)
There were enough online signatures to force the White House to
incorporate the Federal Research Public Access Act into policy
discussion; the act would require open access for work funded by
large US government agencies
Elsevier is (slowly) opening up its back catalogue for some journals
From April 2013, work from UK research council funding must be
open access within six months of publication
20. A caveat
Last I heard, Elsevier charges $3600 to make a
Vis Res paper open access
So they can still rake in the money…
21. Problems
The change to open access as a form of Prisoners’ Dilemma
It needs everyone to switch
If some people don’t change over, then their path to high-impact,
non open access publications could be eased by the absence of
(some) competition
So there will be a transition period, where things are awkward
But I think it’s the future
22. Hits on Web of Knowledge
(searched on 31 August 2012)
Vis Res
Vis Res PLoS since
ONE 2006
“visual search” 312 70 148
“second-order motion” 161 5 44
“binocular rivalry” 190 36 76
“biological motion” 42 42 23
“eye movements” 1641 218 418
“face processing” 36 47 30
“colo(u)r constancy” 52 0 13
“spatial vision” 240 4 49
“object tracking” 15 8 12
23. Not just Vis Res vs. PLoS ONE
There are an ever increasing number of open access journals
e.g. JoV, PLoS ONE, Frontiers, iPerception
Some make profits, some claim they don’t
Early days: quality is sometimes hard to judge
(many newer ones won’t have an impact factor yet, for example)
Also journals that make things open access reasonably quickly
e.g. Proc R Soc B
Elsevier doesn’t just publish Vis Res
There’s also Current Biology, Cognition, TICS, TINS …
24. Problems
Publishing costs money
Open access just changes who pays: the authors, not the readers
So if we move to open access, we need to find the cash to do so*
* but note PLoS policy
Divert library funds previously used for journal subscriptions to
pay for open access authors’ charges?
Sounds appealing, but does it add up?
25. http://thecostofknowledge.com/
Options:
won’t publish
won’t referee
won’t do editorial work
How many here have been to the website?
How many signed?
12,649 and counting