Professors boycott major publisher

By: Melhor Leonor/Staff Writer

Researchers at the University are taking a stand against one of the world’s largest scientific journal publishers.

The nation-wide boycott, which has been gaining momentum over the last couple weeks, is encouraging researchers from all fields to refrain from publishing, refereeing and doing editorial work for journal publisher, Elsevier, until the company “radically changes how they operate.”

As of Feb. 8, 4,690 pledges by researchers were posted on the pages of thecostofknowledge.com as part of the boycott.

Stephen Charman, professor at the University and member of the editorial board of The Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, published by Elsevier, said he fully supports the boycott, in part because of the high prices, which limit availability.

“Many of these publishers make it difficult to gain access to this work, and charge a substantial fee in order to do so,” Charman said.  “In fact, unless you are at a university that pays a very large amount of money for access to these journals, the cost can be virtually prohibitively expensive, making it almost impossible for tax payers to access the very studies they paid to fund in the first place.”

The homepage of the boycott lists three objections against the publisher’s practices: High prices for individual journals, journal bundles that do not benefit university libraries, and Elsevier’s support of legislation such as SOPA, PIPA and the Research Works Act which aim to restrict the free exchange of information.

Philip Bolton, electronic theses and dissertations coordinator for the University Graduate School, is among the FIU faculty that pledged to “Won’t Publish” and shares this view.

“As a public university, public money is used to fund research and that research isn’t always available to the people who fund the research, the taxpayers,” Bolton said.

Another objection Charman and other researchers have against Elsevier is that it limits the free flow of information through their pay wall.

“It is my, and most scientists’ beliefs, that science should be as open and transparent as possible; science works best when there is a free flow of information,” Charman said. “Elsevier is directly opposed to this goal: they want to make money, and they do that by making it difficult to gain access to journals unless you pay [for] them.

Despite the thousands of pledges, both Charman and Bolton agree that for the boycott to bring changes, there needs to be much more support from researchers, librarians and students.

“Unless there is substantial support from the research community, I’m not sure if they would respond at all,” Charman said.

Bolton also noted that although the boycott is research-lead, students play a key role that begins with understanding where their information comes from and the costs incurred by the University to acquire it.

“Elsevier is aware of the issue and until they experience true loss from faculty boycotts, I doubt they’ll make concessions,” Bolton said. “Students should be aware of where their information comes from. Students should understand the issue and support their faculty and librarians.”

Associate professor for the department of mathematics, Thomas Leness showed his support to the boycott by pledging “Won’t Publish, Won’t Referee, Won’t do Editorial Work” and while he supports the cause he is also aware of the changes this will bring to his research.

“Not publishing in Elsevier journals means I have to find other journals in which to publish. I have published in Elsevier journals in the past so this does present an inconvenience,” Leness said. “I think that will be difficult to do [since] helping other mathematicians edit and improve their work is an important professional responsibility.”

Researchers believe this boycott  will also shine a light on the publishing industry as whole and bring about awaited changes.

“I think it is encouraging researchers to take a hard look at academic publishing models. Elsevier is considered to be particularly egregious, compared to other publishers, in terms of cost, but I think there is a more general trend for researchers to question the necessity of the current publishing models,” Charman said.

Growing continuously, the Elsevier boycott is a demonstration that argues for a reformation of a publishing model that many say is outdated.

“The boycott represents a realization that we do not need outdated publishing models and as the people who ultimately control the commodity that Elsevier is selling, we have some control over this situation, and we are in a position to decide what we do with it,” Charman said.  “Elsevier needs researchers; researchers do not need Elsevier. And we are now considering other options.”

Furthermore, Bolton added that a move towards the Open Access type of publishing would benefit both researchers and students.

“Faculty members and researchers are working hard to beat cancer, to overcome racism, to understand the universe, and if that information is locked behind high subscription prices, said Bolton. “It’s severely obvious that this impedes ‘the progress of science.’”

Be the first to comment on "Professors boycott major publisher"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*