refusing to support Elsevier

[Bonnie Urciuoli]

One might want to consider who the effective agents of academic publishing
models actually are.  "We" as academics include those of us who publish,
edit, do reviews, etc.  Yes, we do this to keep our reputations and jobs;
we also do it a citizens of the discipline.  However, how much does that
"we" include those who make decisions about business models in academic
publishing?  It is roughly the same set of issues that surround the
corporatization of academic institutions.  "We" as faculty don't get a lot
of input into the initial construction of decisions about revenue streams,
administrative positions, marketing decisions, etc.  "We" tend to be
brought in after the fact, when "our" consensus is sought.  For
illustration, I recommend Gaye Tuchman's recent and very informative
ethnography *Wannabe U*, analyzing this institutional process, tracked
through the past decade and some.  I'd love to see an equivalent
ethnography of academic publishing.
Bonnie Urciuoli
Anthropology Department
Hamilton College
Clinton NY

2012/1/25 Celso Alvarez Cáccamo <lxalvarz at udc.es>

> Then, why do people keep sending manuscripts to their journals? The
> publishers' KIVE policy (Knowledge Is Very Expensive) seems to me to be a
> natural consequence of the logic of convertibility of capital which we
> embrace and promote (rankings, "serious" peer reviews, salary promotions
> based on "production", salary negotiations according to competing offers
> and intellectual caché, etc.). Today's KIVE may seem excessive, as any
> programmed emboldening of the Market, but the truth is that we (well, those
> in the academic field who do publish things) have created it. When the
> logic of intellectual production is strictly the same as that of
> manufacturing tablets or cookies, it's not surprising that comparable
> phenomena (concentration of capital, luxurious goods, humongous
> conferences) ensue. There's no way out from within: that's the way the
> field works, and when the Market can show shamelessly its big claws --
> which is its vocation -- it's because the times are ripe for it. "Free
> knowledge" can't exist, as it would destroy our structural position and our
> positions, and each of us still has at least a few adjacent competitors
> (colleagues, friends, ex-partners, ex-lovers) to be shoved to the roadside.
>
> Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
>
> No dia 25/01/2012, às 00:09, Ilana Gershon <imgershon at GMAIL.COM> escreveu:
>
> > I know that a number of people on this list are unhappy with Elsevier,
> and in particular with how exorbitant its costs are, and how restrictive
> its access is.
> > Mathematicians have decided to protest this in a bottom-up campaign,
> signing a petition that they will not support any of its journals until
> Elsevier changes
> > the way it operates.  This protest is beginning to cross disciplines,
> and in the interest of encouraging that, I am posting the link to the
> petition here:
> >
> > http://thecostofknowledge.com/index.php
> >
> >
> > To entextualize, Tim Gowers, a Fields medalist,  lists the reasons he is
> protesting their practices:
> >
> > 1. It charges very high prices --- so far above the average that it
> seems quite extraordinary that they can get away with it.
> >
> > 2. One method that they have for getting away with it is a practice
> known as "bundling", where instead of giving libraries
> > the choice of which journals they want to subscribe to, they offer them
> the choice between a large collection of journals
> > (chosen by them) or nothing at all. So if/some/Elsevier journals in the
> "bundle" are indispensable to a library, that library
> > is forced to subscribe at very high subscription rates to a large number
> of journals, across all the sciences, many of
> > which they do not want. (The journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals is a
> notorious example of a journal that is
> > regarded as a joke by many mathematicians, but which libraries all round
> the world must nevertheless subscribe
> > to.) Given that libraries have limited budgets, this often means that
> they cannot subscribe to journals that they
> > would much rather subscribe to, so it is not just libraries that are
> harmed, but other publishers, which is of course
> > part of the motivation for the scheme.
> >
> > 3. If libraries attempt to negotiate better deals, Elsevier is ruthless
> about cutting off access to all their journals.
> >
> > 4. Elsevier supports many of the measures, such as theResearch Works Act
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act>, that attempt to stop
> the move to
> > open access. They also supported SOPA and PIPA and lobbied strongly for
> them.
> >
> >
> > If you want to read the full blog post, it is here:
> http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Ilana
>