refusing to support Elsevier

[Leila Monaghan]

What are relevant Elsevier journals for linguistic anthropology to avoid?

best,

Leila

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Bonnie Urciuoli <burciuol at hamilton.edu>wrote:

> 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
> >
>



-- 
Leila Monaghan, PhD
Department of Anthropology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming