[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!



Am 11.01.2012 13:27, schrieb Jaime Headden:

 OK, we might as well do this again.

 I understand that the US congress is trying to pass such a law, and
 that Elsevier supports it.

Um, no. Elsevier is trying to introduce such a bill into the US congress.

 I think it takes some mighty big c[oj]ones to tell a corporation that
 they cannot charge access for the work they publish on their own
 dime.

The current rules say that work funded by US taxpayer money must not end up behind a paywall. For this very reason, I don't know if any such manuscripts are even submitted to Elsevier journals in the first place.

Elsevier wants to abolish this.

Perhaps Elsevier wants a share in that "market".

Finally, it is intellectually dishonest of you to keep telling us that Elsevier has costs, unless you've somehow managed to genuinely overlook this post by Mike Taylor that was addressed both to the list and directly to you (so it should be in your inbox twice):

 On 11 January 2012 11:40, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>
 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.