From: "Lowe, Chrysanne (ELS-SDG)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:10:51 +0000

I was watching Twitter last night; literally watching the boycott
commentary run by like a market ticker, and wondered to myself “when
did research information get so exciting?” Now it seems that the world
has discovered what Librarians and Scholarly Publishers have known and
struggled with for years.  The information industry is exciting; and
the issues at hand are complicated and at the forefront of the
intellectual property and copyright arena; with far-reaching
repercussions.

Although it’s tempting to boil issues down to catch-phrases like
“Publicly funded research should be free to the public,” it is much
more difficult to divine the implications of such statements. I was
recently told about a dynamic government-funded research center to
develop flexible display technology. What portion of that research
should be free:  the research report to the funding agency; the
peer-reviewed published article; or the new flexi-plastic tablet as
the result of that publicly-funded research?  How did we come to
accept that the peer-reviewed article meets that obligation?  I think
this is an important discussion; one that needs much more thoughtful
debate.

And as that debate is fueled in part by three criticisms of Elsevier
on thecostofknowledge.com, I hope readers will keep these facts in
mind:

First, that access to published content is actually greater and at its
lowest cost per use than ever. This is a direct result of investments
from publishers to digitize and disseminate content and the effort of
libraries to form consortia to negotiate discounts for increased
volumes of quality material.

Secondly, that Elsevier offers a broad menu of purchasing options:
from pay-per-view, title-by-title, to collections; however, there is
no contesting that the introduction of large collections have added
enormous access at fractions of the list prices; and resulted in
reduced cost per use. It’s just not true that the “extra titles” are
unused, we can see from usage reports that in fact approximately 40%
of usage from the Freedom Collection comes from previously
unsubscribed journals.

Finally, it is Elsevier’s mission to expand access to content, not
restrict it.  And because of the actions that Libraries and Publishers
have taken, we have together been hugely successful in this mission.
In a recent study by the Publishers’ Research Consortium over 90% of
nearly 4000 researchers surveyed, reported “very high satisfaction”
with access to research articles.  Elsevier supports open access. We
offer several open access options including a sponsored article option
for over 1,100 titles. We have always allowed authors to voluntarily
post manuscripts.

Elsevier aims to make research more accessible and discoverable while
ensuring the integrity of the scientific record. We’ve always
supported the principle that the public should have access to publicly
funded research. We believe this can best be achieved in an
environment without government mandates.

From what I see inside Elsevier, there is universal recognition that
we are on a journey.  We are furiously looking to innovate, adapt, and
change; as any company that has existed for well over a hundred years
must. I know that many libraries struggle with budget problems right
now; but Librarians and Publishers, in my humble opinion, have
accomplished a great deal since we embarked on this transition from
print to electronic dissemination. The many customers that I have
worked with over the years have never failed to address these complex
issues with thoughtful and considered approaches. Why do we, Libraries
and Publishers, continue to do this?  Maybe because we both know that
this is exciting and meaningful work; that simple slogans won’t serve
science in the long run; and that although we understand there will be
differences of opinion, continued engagement and respect will continue
to advance the cause.

Chrysanne Lowe
VP Global Marketing Communications for Elsevier A&G Research Markets
http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/blog