- Why scientists are boycotting a publisher - Opinion - The Boston Globe
- U.S. call for advice on publicly funded research reignites open access debates | Inside Higher Ed
- Fake Elsevier
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 06:15 AM PST
"THE SCIENTIFIC community finds itself at the beginning of its own Arab Spring. At stake are values that all Americans hold dear: the free flow of information and the continued betterment of human life. Success is by no means guaranteed, but it’s an important protest movement...Elsevier has settled on a business strategy of exploitation, aligning itself against the interests of the scientific community. Most of the intellectual work that goes into Elsevier’s journals is provided for free, by scientists whose salaries are largely paid for by taxpayers. Then Elsevier charges exorbitant rates for its journals, with many titles running in the thousands of dollars a year. This sharply curtails the sharing of results - the fuel of scientific discovery - and makes it prohibitively expensive for the public to read what appears in its pages. Yet for Elsevier, this looks like success: In 2010 Elsevier reported revenues of about $3.2 billion, of which a whopping 36 percent were profit....Now Elsevier is supporting an odious bit of legislation known as the Research Works Act. Currently, the National Institutes of Health has a rule: If the American people pay for research, then they should be able to see the results without paying again. This is simple fairness. Yet the legislation would end that policy, further boosting Elsevier’s profits by locking important biomedical research, the stuff of life and death, behind paywalls....“We are pouring a lot of money down the drain,’’ Gowers says. “If we didn’t do that, then that money could be used for science.’’ ...Elsevier’s rapaciousness was on display in 2009, for example, when it was forced to admit to publishing several sham “journals’’ paid for by pharmaceutical clients, filled with glowing descriptions of their work....Researchers should sign the boycott petition and encourage colleagues to sign. Those on an Elsevier editorial board should resign - and take fellow board members with them. This will not just send a message to Elsevier, but to an industry that needs to change...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 05:24 AM PST
A summary of some of the responses to the White House RFI on OA, with special attention on the controversy among anthropologists over the submission from the American Anthropological Association.
Posted: 08 Feb 2012 07:31 PM PST
|You are subscribed to email updates from Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag oa.new |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|