[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!
If you DMLers are worth your weight in cladograms, you'll email
firstname.lastname@example.org right damn now.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> I wrote:
> <I think it takes some mighty big cahones to tell a corporation that
> they cannot charge access for the work they publish on their own dime.
> This is especially important when you consider these journals do not
> charge submission or review fees, making the process of _getting
> published_ easier.>
> Heinrich replied:
> <<Strawman argument: nobody says Elsevier has to publish for free.>>
> Note that all portions of access to an Elsevier journal cost money:
> Personal or public subscription, photocopying from said paper subscriptions,
> or digital access. Each of these maintains a source of income for the
> publisher. It doesn't matter here the actual production costs versus income
> gained here, or who has to pay the money to gain access or how much.
> I sent the following privately to Heinrich, but realize it works better
> "There was a workaround available that would likely have made it so that
> Elsevier wouldn't be involved, but it would have hurt availability and
> interest: the scientists would have to have published in journals that
> enabled open access, no costs or cost-covered publication, or where portions
> of their funds were paid to permanently unlock the articles for the
> foreseeable future. This, however, becomes expensive."
> Heinrich writes:
> <<It just says that scientists should publish elsewhere, where the access is
> That's my point. This is economics: Elsevier offers a service, which is in
> this case notoriety through "impact" in which journal you submit to and,
> effectively, costless submission; they argue that to have this, they can
> charge the demanding public what they want to; the public pays what is
> demanded; Elsevier pockets this value. Because the public does not turn its
> nose at this service at this cost, Elsevier are able to maintain, rather then
> reduce the cost or discontinue the service; they may also increase the cost,
> and if the product is being purchased at that higher cost without rejection
> or drawdown, this cost becomes justifiable. People are _not_ looking
> elsewhere. How then does one countenance the process is evil when they
> continue using it? The only option there is when it is the _only_ game in
> town, to which the access to publication is held in a monopoly; in this case,
> one simply has no choice and must comply, else perish. Given we are an
> international community, this is certainly not the case..
> It should be noted that its previous incarnation (2011 HR 801,
> http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h801/show) didn't get out of committee.
> But also note that sponsors are not limited to Elsevier. Wiley and AAP are
> also supporters, among others, being publishers who will all be potentially
> negatively affected by the ability to charge for access to their publications
> for this. This is not about individual right to a paper, but about the
> publication as a whole.
> 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
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:29:56 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Call for quick action: Elsevier trying to restrict open access
>> to US-government-funded research!
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> To: email@example.com
>> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Jaime Headden wrote:
>> > I think it takes some mighty big cahones to tell a corporation that they
>> > cannot charge access for the work they publish on their own dime. This is
>> > especially important when you consider these journals do not charge
>> > submission or review fees, making the process of _getting published_
>> > easier.
>> Strawman argument: nobody says Elsevier has to publish for free. It
>> just says that scientists should publish elsewhere, where the access
>> is open.