From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:09:57 -0400

I can't resist asking this perhaps impertinent question: how does
publishers'
exploitation of unpaid faculty labor in peer reviewing to enhance their
profits
differ from American universities' exploitation of unpaid athletes to
enhance
their profits from intercollegiate sports?  In both cases the people
actually
doing the hard labor are being asked to donate their labor for the benefit
of
others who enrich themselves and reap the financial rewards?

Sandy Thatcher


On Wed, May 23, 2018 10:34 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:00 PM
>
>The circuitous road towards open access: Swedish universities to pull the
>plug on Elsevier
>
>http://blog.ki.se/rektor/the-circuitous-road-towards-open-ac
>cess-swedish-universities-to-pull-the-plug-on-elsevier/
>
>Posted on 05/21/2018 by *Ole Petter Ottersen Rector of Karolinska Institute
>in Sweden,*
>
>A few days ago we were informed that the Bibsam Consortium in Sweden has
>cancelled the agreement with Elsevier. It is now likely that after 1 July
>2018 Swedish universities will not have access to new articles in
>Elsevier’s journals. Articles published before this date will remain
>accessible.
>
>This turn of events is highly unfortunate, not least for those of our
>researchers that depend on the wide range of journals that Elsevier offers.
>
>We have ended up in this unfortunate situation for the simple reason that
>the negotiations with Elsevier broke down. Elsevier’s final proposal was
>unacceptable, since the costs entailed would preclude consortium members
>from pursuing the goal for immediate open access set by the Swedish
>government and by the institutions themselves. The aim of the consortium
>has been to transform the subscription-based licensing model to the open
>access publishing model.
>
>The most worrying development in the publishing industry has been the
>phenomenon called “double dipping” which means that researchers and
>institutions pay twice for the same product: first, for the publishing of
>articles, and second, for the access to the same articles. In addition,
>many researchers invest a lot of efforts in the peer review process,
>without economic compensation. In this way universities and research
>institutes pay publishers several times over. The only sustainable solution
>is to change the business model, as requested by the Bibsam Consortium.
>
>In order to get access to Elsevier’s journals, KI spent about 14 MKr in
>2017. This is more than 1/3 of the library’s total e-media expenses in
>2017. Our researchers published 553 articles in Elsevier journals in 2017
>with a KI researcher as corresponding author. Sixty two of these articles
>were open access. Our library has estimated that the open access fee was
>close to 2 MKr. This means that in 2017 KI paid Elsevier a total of 16 MKr.
>
>We acknowledge the importance and quality of Elsevier’s journals and are
>well aware of the extra work and difficulties this cancellation will cause
>our researchers. However, at one point in time we must react to the
>increasing costs and set an example. Now is the time to do this. We hope
>and trust that our stance on this matter will meet with understanding and
>support in the academic community. Karolinska Institutet’s library, KIB,
>will work hard to alleviate the inconvenience incurred by pulling the plug
>on Elsevier.
>
>Finally, a note on the key question that is at the root of the present
>problem. Why go for open access?
>
>This was one of several issues that we discussed in our commission on
>global governance for health. We concluded – in no uncertain terms – that
>restrictions on access to knowledge serve to aggravate extant knowledge
>disparities and health inequities. Equal access to information –
>irrespective of geography and economy – is central to improvement of
>health, the very mission of KI.  In my mind, it is in society’s interest –
>and also in our own interest as scientists – that what we publish actually
>reaches all those who need the knowledge and who stand to benefit from it.
>
>Almost 600 years ago the development of the printing press led to dramatic
>changes in how knowledge was spread and communicated. This did not happen
>without opposition. Today digitalization opens for an equally dramatic and
>welcome change towards the democratization of knowledge. Again we see that
>new opportunities meet with resistance. But I am convinced that eventually
>we all will see how absurd it is to have dollars, euro, pound, Swedish
>kroner or other currencies intervene between the keystrokes on your PC and
>one’s access to “the open pool of knowledge.” It’s time that knowledge
>becomes a public good.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Colin Steele
>Emeritus Fellow
>
>ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences
>The Australian National University
>Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13
>Acton, ACT, 2601
>Australia
>
>P: + 61 2 6125 8983
>E: [log in to unmask]