[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Call for quick action: Elsevier trying to restrict open access to US-government-funded research!

  I am not defending Elsevier out of pique, but out of a need to affect a 
reasonable and logical argument. Elsevier, as a corporation, must actually pay 
costs to produce what it does. Do you think it doesn't? It makes me wonder: Did 
you not know what you were getting into when you submitted in the first place? 
Looked up the rights you'd be allowed when you looked up the journal submission 
process and guidelines? It seems that the only way to escape this is to have 
been utterly ignorant that, as a corporation, Elsevier charges money for its 
product. That's how _it_ works, but not how you think it should work. I feel 
you are trying to apply a standard that works for _other_ open source journals 
or OS-supportive institutions and push that onto Elsevier, which now becomes a 
bogeyman for the evils of corporations. Trust me, right now, this resonates in 
the United States given the recent Occupy Wall Street movements and the 
"corporations are people"/unlimited corporate financing issues that now pervade 
any political discussion that occurs [for which I have nothing further to say].

  It should also be apparent that Elsevier has actual costs, not just in the 
handling of MSS prior to publication, but in the costs of printing. Until 
recently, _every single journal in the world_ was a print publication, which 
incurs real costs that must be paid, down to the machinists who have to repair 
the printing machines. But, like many corporations that offer a service that 
can be had elsewhere, if you find their prices too high, then go elsewhere 
where the environment is more to your liking. Sure, Elsevier is one of the 
biggest, if not _the_ biggest, name in town, but that doesn't mean you _must_ 
support them in all their evil and villainy so artfully painted.

  Again, "selection" is a process that works in financial circles as well.


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> From: mike@indexdata.com
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:46:05 +0000
> Subject: Re: Call for quick action: Elsevier trying to restrict open access 
> to US-government-funded research!
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: david.marjanovic@gmx.at; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> On 11 January 2012 11:40, Jaime Headden  wrote:
> >   Interesting. Now, I respect the right of Elsevier, as a corporation, to 
> > set limits on the things it pays for and how they may be obtained. Nothing 
> > is free in this world, as it were.
> To Elsevier, and other academic publishers, it is. The author's
> original manuscript is free; the work of peer-reviewing it is free;
> the author's work in revision is free; the handling editor's work is
> not QUITE free, but if paid at the rate of $250 per year as noted in
> John Hutchinson's recent tweet, then assuming maybe fifty manuscripts
> handled per year -- one a week -- that comes to $5 per manuscript.
> That's $5 total cost for the manuscript itself (including figures),
> the editorial work, the reviewing and the revisions.
> So don't tell Elsevier there is no such thing as a free lunch.
> They've been eating on our dime for many years now, which is why there
> were able to post a 2010 profit of £724m on revenues of £2 billion --
> a profit of 36%, unheard of in any other sector.
> -- Mike.