Elsevier’s profits swell to more than £900M(timeshighereducation.com)
timeshighereducation.com
Elsevier’s profits swell to more than £900M
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elseviers-profits-swell-more-ps900-million
40 comments
All publicly funded research should be freely available to the public ... its sad academics have allowed themselves to become enslaved by parasitic publishers ... academics must launch a full court massive grassroots revolt away from publishing their research at such journals ... a short term period of chaos during the transition period over to open journals is a small price to pay for such freedom
PhD student here.
I think refusing to transfer copyright is a better option in fields that have no open access journals, like my field. While I haven't published in a journal yet, the discussions I had with a few representatives of publishers at a conference suggested that some publishers will accept only a license to print if you ask. One publisher even showed me an example of an article where they did not own the copyright.
Pre-prints are also a good option, but you won't own the changes made in review if you transfer copyright (for a journal that is not open access).
I think refusing to transfer copyright is a better option in fields that have no open access journals, like my field. While I haven't published in a journal yet, the discussions I had with a few representatives of publishers at a conference suggested that some publishers will accept only a license to print if you ask. One publisher even showed me an example of an article where they did not own the copyright.
Pre-prints are also a good option, but you won't own the changes made in review if you transfer copyright (for a journal that is not open access).
There are many examples of articles where the publisher does not own the copyright; any article written by US government scientists is not subject to copyright.
Preprints are an excellent option, and every field should make distributing preprints at the standard servers (Arxiv, Biorxiv, etc.) the norm. The broad visibility from open preprint servers seems to be evolving into a different kind of peer review, to the extent that if, in my field, I see a published article with no arXiv preprint I wonder if the authors are trying to hide something.
Preprints are an excellent option, and every field should make distributing preprints at the standard servers (Arxiv, Biorxiv, etc.) the norm. The broad visibility from open preprint servers seems to be evolving into a different kind of peer review, to the extent that if, in my field, I see a published article with no arXiv preprint I wonder if the authors are trying to hide something.
Scholars can often make their work free via pre-print. The issue is that the published version isn't free, and the pre-print is hard to find and often not as nice looking.
I made a github repo of my last paper published in an Elsevier journal. This was cool because I could put the latex and simulation code for others to copy. https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths
The final version differs a little bit because they had a copy-editor go through and make some good improvements, even after the referees made their comments. Interestingly, the journal was fine with my linking to the repo within the text of the paper, as a way to share the code.
There is nothing like real open access though. This journal has wonderful typesetting and such and is totally free: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860
It's funny what tricks they use to justify their existence. Always emailing me about bizarre author features no one will use. Makes me sad to think of the engineers sitting in a big room year-on-year polishing features no one will use.
I made a github repo of my last paper published in an Elsevier journal. This was cool because I could put the latex and simulation code for others to copy. https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths
The final version differs a little bit because they had a copy-editor go through and make some good improvements, even after the referees made their comments. Interestingly, the journal was fine with my linking to the repo within the text of the paper, as a way to share the code.
There is nothing like real open access though. This journal has wonderful typesetting and such and is totally free: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860
It's funny what tricks they use to justify their existence. Always emailing me about bizarre author features no one will use. Makes me sad to think of the engineers sitting in a big room year-on-year polishing features no one will use.
In the same spirit, our lab is experimenting with a new approach to scientific publishing via Github: https://twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776
No paywall, no delay, straight to the web. Open data, open code, interactive/animated figures. Transparent, rolling peer review, version control, CC-BY license, citable DOIs. I was worried no one would read it, but it turns out science twitter is awesome. Very positive experience, so far.
No paywall, no delay, straight to the web. Open data, open code, interactive/animated figures. Transparent, rolling peer review, version control, CC-BY license, citable DOIs. I was worried no one would read it, but it turns out science twitter is awesome. Very positive experience, so far.
That's good, but it is not a substitute for preprint servers. In particular, preprint servers are archival and more discoverable.
Sounds like we're pulling in the same direction re:improving scientific publishing. At the risk of debating an ally, do you mean to imply that preprint servers are "more archival"? I'm guessing you're familiar with CERN/Zenodo; you trust bioArxiv's continued existence more than CERN's? I rate them as similar, arguably with an edge to CERN.
My experience with publishing is that discoverability is a stronger function of advertising and (especially) getting cited than the publication venue. I do agree that bioarxiv and arxiv are nice advertising venues, but there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
My experience with publishing is that discoverability is a stronger function of advertising and (especially) getting cited than the publication venue. I do agree that bioarxiv and arxiv are nice advertising venues, but there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
I'm actually only familiar with the arXiv, for physics and computer science research. I don't know much about biorxiv or Zenodo, but they both seem much better than a personal website or github page.
The arXiv has overlay sites, such as http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ or https://scirate.com/ , that improve discoverability over the basic arXiv interface; for example, you can browse all the papers in a given area posted in the last two months, sorted by some proxy for "interest." Of course there is also Google Scholar, and perhaps there are better ways.
The arXiv has overlay sites, such as http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ or https://scirate.com/ , that improve discoverability over the basic arXiv interface; for example, you can browse all the papers in a given area posted in the last two months, sorted by some proxy for "interest." Of course there is also Google Scholar, and perhaps there are better ways.
It is free if they get publish by PLOS.
Are you sure? I'm nearly certain that PLOS is a publisher that charges manuscript charges for OA papers - most do.
PLOS One fees are $1500 per paper.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
Ahh, I'm sorry. I meant Open Access - as in free to read upon publication.
I did some more digging. Turns out they have some leeway for submission fees under some conditions: https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance
I did some more digging. Turns out they have some leeway for submission fees under some conditions: https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance
It’s not that easy. They own the network. It’s like saying “It’s a shame we have allowed Verizon and AT&T to own all our communication.”
They own infrastructure and cell towers and such but these publishers own mindshare and they have people’s attention and that’s the whole point. You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). Sad but true.
They own infrastructure and cell towers and such but these publishers own mindshare and they have people’s attention and that’s the whole point. You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). Sad but true.
> You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people).
If this is true it reflects poorly on academia and science (insofar as science is an organized activity). Shouldn’t research be judged by its own merits, and the results it produces against verifiable goals and not the popularity contest of competing journals? IMHO to the extent that what you are saying is true, it’s honestly understandable and a little justified that the public is skeptical of academic science. You’re saying it’s in large part a popularity contest.
If this is true it reflects poorly on academia and science (insofar as science is an organized activity). Shouldn’t research be judged by its own merits, and the results it produces against verifiable goals and not the popularity contest of competing journals? IMHO to the extent that what you are saying is true, it’s honestly understandable and a little justified that the public is skeptical of academic science. You’re saying it’s in large part a popularity contest.
There are thousands of papers published each month in some fields. Are you going to read and evaluate them all?
No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
Elsevier is earning money because they have created a structure of evaluation that's not entirely garbage, and that is self-reinforcing. It might be good to replace them with a non-profit approach, but isn't easy.
No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
Elsevier is earning money because they have created a structure of evaluation that's not entirely garbage, and that is self-reinforcing. It might be good to replace them with a non-profit approach, but isn't easy.
> Are you going to read and evaluate them all?
Elsevier doesn't read or evaluate them either. They use academic peer reviewers who don't have any equity or salary from Elsevier.
> No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting.
None of those people are paid by Elsevier.
> That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
No, the publishing system provides brands. If Elsevier actually curated, hired and paid a fair salary to the peer reviewers and researchers who actually performed and evaluate the research I think you would be right. But it still seems to me they're purely a marketing middleman that takes public funding and public laborers and turns a private profit.
Elsevier doesn't read or evaluate them either. They use academic peer reviewers who don't have any equity or salary from Elsevier.
> No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting.
None of those people are paid by Elsevier.
> That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
No, the publishing system provides brands. If Elsevier actually curated, hired and paid a fair salary to the peer reviewers and researchers who actually performed and evaluate the research I think you would be right. But it still seems to me they're purely a marketing middleman that takes public funding and public laborers and turns a private profit.
In the US, all research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be made publicly available on PubMed Central after a delay of up to 12 months (https://publicaccess.nih.gov/). This is a good thing, but no embargo would be so much better.
It's difficult to change this situation because the journal subscription fees are paid from university budgets and are invisible to academics. Authors and editors benefit from affiliation with prestigious journals' brands. The university library system and the taxpayer pays the cost. Academics also pay a cost in wasted time wrestling with journal paywalls, but that will go away only decades after a complete switch to open access. Open Access is definitely the right thing to do, but the economic incentives are aligned against it. Since there are ~ 300 applicants per open faculty position these days every bit of self-promotion is perceived to be life-or-death for one's career.
It's difficult to change this situation because the journal subscription fees are paid from university budgets and are invisible to academics. Authors and editors benefit from affiliation with prestigious journals' brands. The university library system and the taxpayer pays the cost. Academics also pay a cost in wasted time wrestling with journal paywalls, but that will go away only decades after a complete switch to open access. Open Access is definitely the right thing to do, but the economic incentives are aligned against it. Since there are ~ 300 applicants per open faculty position these days every bit of self-promotion is perceived to be life-or-death for one's career.
Sometimes it can be intimidating to see the resources and lobbying power that these behemoths have. They have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
At the same time I'm inspired by projects like Discrete Analysis (http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/) and Fermat's Library (https://fermatslibrary.com/) - there are actually a lot of smart, well intentioned folks pushing for a move towards more openness and collaboration in science and research.
At the same time I'm inspired by projects like Discrete Analysis (http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/) and Fermat's Library (https://fermatslibrary.com/) - there are actually a lot of smart, well intentioned folks pushing for a move towards more openness and collaboration in science and research.
News like this, despite more than a decade of regulatory and protests against their locking up of scientific knowledge, really gives one faith in our collective ability to influence policy. Apparently that doesn't even work on the very local level.
Really gives one faith in what will happen with things like global warming policy, or economic cooperation.
Really gives one faith in what will happen with things like global warming policy, or economic cooperation.
It is basically the prisoner's dilemma. The free publication platforms do not yet have prestige because few prestigious researchers publish there; but only few prestigious researchers publish on free publication platforms because they are not prestigious enough.
The only way to overcome a prisoner's dilemma is education and trust.
The only way to overcome a prisoner's dilemma is education and trust.
I'm computer science, everyone is publishing on arxiv.org . why can't other fields?
The difference is in the MO for publishing in a given field...not the conscious venue selection so much. From what I know, computer scientists have a high publication rate, rank conference publications as pretty important and sometimes write papers that are about something they built.
Compare this to economists. For economists, it's all about hitting a home run a couple times...publishing a few career-making papers in the best possible journals. Economists will publish only a couple times per year, and their papers are sometimes very long. The review process is crazy: the time between first draft of the paper and final publication can be like five years.
I think what determines this is the difficulty of ascertaining the quality of a piece of work. In CS or math or math physics, I think anyone in a certain subfield is capable of ascertaining how good a paper is. It doesn't need to be extremely long or flashy, and chances are it will make an incremental improvement. By contrast, let's say an economist publishes a paper called "do red light cameras encourage speeding?" The intended audience (economists) doesn't really know anything about red light cameras or driver behavior. They don't have the time to do all the data analyses themselves, and until recently would never even have access to the data. So they look for a bunch of other markers of quality: writing style, citations, length, venue, etc.
Compare this to economists. For economists, it's all about hitting a home run a couple times...publishing a few career-making papers in the best possible journals. Economists will publish only a couple times per year, and their papers are sometimes very long. The review process is crazy: the time between first draft of the paper and final publication can be like five years.
I think what determines this is the difficulty of ascertaining the quality of a piece of work. In CS or math or math physics, I think anyone in a certain subfield is capable of ascertaining how good a paper is. It doesn't need to be extremely long or flashy, and chances are it will make an incremental improvement. By contrast, let's say an economist publishes a paper called "do red light cameras encourage speeding?" The intended audience (economists) doesn't really know anything about red light cameras or driver behavior. They don't have the time to do all the data analyses themselves, and until recently would never even have access to the data. So they look for a bunch of other markers of quality: writing style, citations, length, venue, etc.
It takes a lot of education. Computer science was actually very slow in moving to the arXiv. The "open" way that people in the field used to use was to link to pdfs on their homepages. An utter disaster for discoverability and archivability. Researchers move around all the time. But this was the standard! It took years for a critical mass to develop such that publishing to the arXiv became the expected standard.
> I'm
Is this so? Every other paper I search has no pdf linked on google scholar, e.g. papers from the bibliographies of arxiv preprints.
Is this so? Every other paper I search has no pdf linked on google scholar, e.g. papers from the bibliographies of arxiv preprints.
It's pretty weird that 25 years into the internet age we have students paying through the nose to attend university and universities paying through the nose to subscribe to publications.
As part of my work, I've had t o read (and implement in code) papers from Elsevier journals.
The authors included Chinese, Turkish and Slavic people. And I didn't even have to look at their 35 dollars for a paper when they don;t even have the decency to help authors with some English copy editing.
The authors included Chinese, Turkish and Slavic people. And I didn't even have to look at their 35 dollars for a paper when they don;t even have the decency to help authors with some English copy editing.
Dammit, the browser mangled my comment.
Fixing:
The authors included Chinese, Turkish and Slavic people. Not all of them could write well in English. And I didn't even have to look at their names to guess nationality, because they would have English grammar mistakes that would make it clear what their native language was.
I really resent paying 35 dollars for a PDF from a company that can't even do some copy editing to help such authors. Elsevier has no respect for the researchers or their readers.
Fixing:
The authors included Chinese, Turkish and Slavic people. Not all of them could write well in English. And I didn't even have to look at their names to guess nationality, because they would have English grammar mistakes that would make it clear what their native language was.
I really resent paying 35 dollars for a PDF from a company that can't even do some copy editing to help such authors. Elsevier has no respect for the researchers or their readers.
By the way, anyone still able to access scihub?
You can always find the working links on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
I use the chrome plugin. This plugin looks bad but is actually pretty sick. One certain pages it will replace the DOI with the sci-hub link.
Dont forget Library Genesis too! http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
http://sci-hub.hk still works fine for me.
https://sci-hub.tw/ works for me.
Next to Equifax, and Wells Fargo, this is the company I’d most like to see metaphorically burned to the ground. Wells Fargo at least provides a service, albeit corruptly, but Equifax and Elsevier are just holes in the ground that eat money.
Edit: What does it mean that my comment is automatically collapsed?
Edit: What does it mean that my comment is automatically collapsed?
In the case of wells Fargo it wasn't just corruption but outright fraud. Hundreds of people should have been brought up on criminal charges for the last of their many scandals
That’s a good point, of course in the last decade the DoJ is all about not prosecuting, and just collecting fines. Sad state of affairs which must change.
[deleted]
[deleted]