On 25 May 2018, at 03:19, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 20:08:54 +0000
Hi
I wanted to clarify one of the comments made below regarding double dipping.
Elsevier has a strict no double dipping policy, as described here. Our journal subscription list prices are calculated based only on the subscription articles in a journal. We do not charge twice for access to the same article.
Understandably, as open access content continues to grow, some have wondered why this is not translating into a corresponding decrease in subscription prices. And this is fueling concern about double dipping. However, it is important to note that while OA is growing, the subscription model is growing too. Certainly for Elsevier, the volume and quality of the articles we publish continues to grow, across both the subscription and open access business models.
Kind regards
Gemma
Gemma Hersh
VP, Open Science
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: @gemmahersh
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]
CRL.EDU] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 24 May 2018 03:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The circuitous road towards open access
*** External email: use caution ***
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
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 FellowANU College of Arts and Social Sciences