Germany vs. Elsevier: universities win temporary free journal access(nature.com)
nature.com
Germany vs. Elsevier: universities win temporary free journal access
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00093-7
147 comments
> This would be enormous, especially as other countries would have a blueprint what to ask for. It also shows just how poorly the UK has handled their renegotiation (it was generally seen as the UK caving completely) [2].
Or it will highlight how other governments are corrupt and their regulatory agencies completely captured by their respective industries.
Or it will highlight how other governments are corrupt and their regulatory agencies completely captured by their respective industries.
I would not call it specifically corruption. Rather, an ideology that it's good to for everyone to generate return of investment everywhere. Of course, this ideology originates from capital holders, and it's quite astounding how widely public services have accepted it. Politicians in public offices, who wish to have lucrative roles in private industries are of course the linchpin of this belief system in the public sphere.
UK derived countries are quite open to the privatization of government and the extraction of profit from the commons. The whole lot of them are closet fascists. I see it being played out like this, Elsevier made ridiculous demands, bureaucrats in the UK said, "Yeah, totally makes sense! Good on You!"
English translation from Google Translate:
• Participating institutions: all institutions entitled to participate in alliance and national licenses in Germany.
• The DEAL facilities have permanent full-text access to the entire title portfolio (e-journals) of the selected publishers.
• All publications of authors from German institutions are automatically switched to open access (CC-BY, including peer review).
• Reasonable pricing according to a simple, future-oriented calculation model based on the publication volume.
• Participating institutions: all institutions entitled to participate in alliance and national licenses in Germany.
• The DEAL facilities have permanent full-text access to the entire title portfolio (e-journals) of the selected publishers.
• All publications of authors from German institutions are automatically switched to open access (CC-BY, including peer review).
• Reasonable pricing according to a simple, future-oriented calculation model based on the publication volume.
I thought UK research councils now require open access publications, either provided by journals ("gold") or by placing manuscripts on open archives ("green"). While this typically involves grant holders paying more for publication (since open access journals usually charge more), it's hardly "caving completely", unless I'm missing something...?
I don't see how requiring grant holders to spend money on the Elsevier "open access" fees is a win for the council? You can always pay more, the point of negotiation is to get more for less. Mandating that researchers pay the Elsevier fees seems like a clear-cut win for Elsevier...
You start out with full rights to your paper. Then you hand over a exclusive "do whatever you want license" to Elsevier for free. Then the UK council requires you to further pay Elsevier so the paper is downloadable from their shitty-ass website. That is an unmitigated disaster.
You start out with full rights to your paper. Then you hand over a exclusive "do whatever you want license" to Elsevier for free. Then the UK council requires you to further pay Elsevier so the paper is downloadable from their shitty-ass website. That is an unmitigated disaster.
I completely agree this is a stupid system that profits mainly Elsevier and other toxic journals. But this still seems to me to be a step in the right direction compared to before, when researchers were not obliged to public their publicly-funded research publicly. Now they are, which is the way it always should have been.
It seems to me that the current peer review model is dying anyway, and new technology (especially the web) is slowly but surely killing it, especially in the fields of computing science and mathematics. I commend Germany's approach, but I don't think the UK's approach was a complete disaster.
It seems to me that the current peer review model is dying anyway, and new technology (especially the web) is slowly but surely killing it, especially in the fields of computing science and mathematics. I commend Germany's approach, but I don't think the UK's approach was a complete disaster.
amygdyl(1)
See the second link for how it is considered "caving completely": none of their own goals was achieved. https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/time-for-elsexit/
So many people in the open access community are holding their breath waiting for what happens when access is cut off - with the expectation that there will not really be a backlash, making the negotiating position stronger.
This move by Elsevier implies that they share this expectation, in which case this would be the best move they could do, but by giving away that they don't think their position is strong, they effectively still weaken their position.
So all in all, if the German negotiators remain firm (and it looks like they will), the prospects for open access appear to be pretty good.
(Note that when I talk about open access, I mean the entire set of ideals usually associated with it as described at [1], not just "pay $3000 to $5000 to make a single article available.)
[1] https://fairoa.org/
This move by Elsevier implies that they share this expectation, in which case this would be the best move they could do, but by giving away that they don't think their position is strong, they effectively still weaken their position.
So all in all, if the German negotiators remain firm (and it looks like they will), the prospects for open access appear to be pretty good.
(Note that when I talk about open access, I mean the entire set of ideals usually associated with it as described at [1], not just "pay $3000 to $5000 to make a single article available.)
[1] https://fairoa.org/
Sorry for the naive question, but why don't the universities collaborate to publish their own open access journals? Don't the ivy leagues have enough prestige to pull it off? Why is Elsevier needed in the information age?
The answer is unfortunately a common trope. There’s no reason at all it should be this way. It contradicts the principles and spirit of science. It chaps my hide.
But it hasn’t changed, because it’s incredibly hard to fight inertia of a large and long standing system where parties who disproportionately benefit, or stand to lose something, will do everything in their formidable power to stop it, with no regard for what’s best for the world.
These are not piss-ant companies involved, most people don’t realize how incredibly profitable the major player is, raking in billions and billions every year. That money is their war chest.
Then you have parties involved who don’t really like the system, but don’t [choose one: have the balls to, or, cant afford to foolishly risk damaging their career or livelyhood to] all out buck the system. The path to jobs, promotions, prestige, and other rewards winds through this anachronistic, corporate interest driven system.
Also common with good vs. evil wars like this, is there are some stories of heros to be told. Courageous people who have taken a stand, in various ways, and made real progress. Every one of those small wins helps clear the path for the next attack.
This gain was particularly delicious - their own arrogance caused them to overestimate their hand. I guess it’s possible it wasn’t arrogance, rather, a strategic bluff, but in either case, they just sat down at the poker table and lost a big pot.
But it hasn’t changed, because it’s incredibly hard to fight inertia of a large and long standing system where parties who disproportionately benefit, or stand to lose something, will do everything in their formidable power to stop it, with no regard for what’s best for the world.
These are not piss-ant companies involved, most people don’t realize how incredibly profitable the major player is, raking in billions and billions every year. That money is their war chest.
Then you have parties involved who don’t really like the system, but don’t [choose one: have the balls to, or, cant afford to foolishly risk damaging their career or livelyhood to] all out buck the system. The path to jobs, promotions, prestige, and other rewards winds through this anachronistic, corporate interest driven system.
Also common with good vs. evil wars like this, is there are some stories of heros to be told. Courageous people who have taken a stand, in various ways, and made real progress. Every one of those small wins helps clear the path for the next attack.
This gain was particularly delicious - their own arrogance caused them to overestimate their hand. I guess it’s possible it wasn’t arrogance, rather, a strategic bluff, but in either case, they just sat down at the poker table and lost a big pot.
Simpler explanation is that academics fear each other more than they fear closed access. So they won't publish in an open journal for fear their colleagues will get ahead by publishing in a prestigious closed journal. They are all competing for the same research dollar.
> Simpler explanation is that academics fear each other more than they fear closed access. So they won't publish in an open journal for fear their colleagues will get ahead by publishing in a prestigious closed journal.
That first sentence seems a bit like saying that people suffering from starvation fear their fellow men, simply because they are competing for a scarce resource.
What I, as an academic, fear, or at least have to respond to, is an incentive system that judges the quality of my publications on the established reputations of the journals in which they appear. It's true that my fellow academics are rivals for promotions and positions, and in this respect I suppose that I fear them in some way; but they suffer as much from the system as I do, and some of the most established use their prestige to fight the good fight (Timothy Gowers being one of the big names on that list), and so I think that the antagonistic sound of saying that I fear them is not accurate in its implication even if it is so in some technical sense.
That first sentence seems a bit like saying that people suffering from starvation fear their fellow men, simply because they are competing for a scarce resource.
What I, as an academic, fear, or at least have to respond to, is an incentive system that judges the quality of my publications on the established reputations of the journals in which they appear. It's true that my fellow academics are rivals for promotions and positions, and in this respect I suppose that I fear them in some way; but they suffer as much from the system as I do, and some of the most established use their prestige to fight the good fight (Timothy Gowers being one of the big names on that list), and so I think that the antagonistic sound of saying that I fear them is not accurate in its implication even if it is so in some technical sense.
I've never fully understood this view, since 'the system' that we all suffer at the hand of is just a collection of our fellow academics. Hiring committees, grant selection panels etc. are a bunch of our peers doing exactly the thing that so many of us (including the people that I sit on these panels with) gripe about - judging the worth of others based on silly metrics and the journals in which they publish.
> I've never fully understood this view, since 'the system' that we all suffer at the hand of is just a collection of our fellow academics.
The first layer, yes, but after that come non-specialist academics, who aren't qualified to judge my particular work on its merits, and so have to substitute some other metric; and then administrators, whose fitness to judge the merits of any academic work is, let me say, not necessarily a given. For example, even without any worries of bias: as a mathematician, it is always a struggle to get non-mathematicians, even (or perhaps especially) other scientists, to realise that author order on mathematicians' papers reflects only one's place in the alphabet, not one's contribution.
The first layer, yes, but after that come non-specialist academics, who aren't qualified to judge my particular work on its merits, and so have to substitute some other metric; and then administrators, whose fitness to judge the merits of any academic work is, let me say, not necessarily a given. For example, even without any worries of bias: as a mathematician, it is always a struggle to get non-mathematicians, even (or perhaps especially) other scientists, to realise that author order on mathematicians' papers reflects only one's place in the alphabet, not one's contribution.
Author order is such an arcane nonsense, and needs to be dismantled. The "roles" indicated by position are peculiar to the discipline and a mystery outside it. The customary position of senior academics e.g. as the "anchor" can confer significant prestige on that academic, while their contribution might be minimal (and even zero, in exploitative situations).
It really is bewildering.
Online academic communities and publishers such as ResearchGate and EndNote could come up with potential solutions here. ResearchGate already asks us to effectively vote about other users' authorship and expertise. Adding a voting system (or similar) whereby users declare the roles played by each author might help dismantle author position hegemony.
Voting might be imperfect, and perhaps there are other options. The current system, though, is ridiculous and contributes towards the exploitation of junior academics, and poor inter-discipline communication. Clearer computational representation of roles could also improve search.
It really is bewildering.
Online academic communities and publishers such as ResearchGate and EndNote could come up with potential solutions here. ResearchGate already asks us to effectively vote about other users' authorship and expertise. Adding a voting system (or similar) whereby users declare the roles played by each author might help dismantle author position hegemony.
Voting might be imperfect, and perhaps there are other options. The current system, though, is ridiculous and contributes towards the exploitation of junior academics, and poor inter-discipline communication. Clearer computational representation of roles could also improve search.
Is this as pronnounced in Germany?
Elseiver has "prestige". What that means is that some of their journals have become the standard destinations to publish at. It's a vicious cycle, to get acknowledged (and perhaps promoted etc) you need to publish in the locations accepted by the people senior to you, then you get sucked in and apply it to the next batch. It would require a massive collective effort to change it, and in some sense this is exactly that. Note something similar happened in CS where there is a successful free journal now, open access and most people put up papers on Arxiv. This was caused by a similar revolt by major universities.
More specifically, Elsevier has high impact factor journals. Somebody had the shitty idea to "rate" scientists "objectively" using some naive version of PageRank (rank = impact factor). Scientists, being scientists, aren't stupid and invented the equivalent of SEO, only there is no Google to tweak the algorithm in response to SEO-spam. Spamming publications of just acceptable quality for high impact factor journals is now a winning strategy for getting tenure, grants etc. Happy sciencing.
It's worse, actually: a large publisher (Thomson Reuters) had the idea to rate journals to help librarians pick which to subscribe to, which evolved to people using that to rate academics as well, which was even less justified. I've written about it in more detail at https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca...
Though Elsevier's hold onto the prestige/impact factor is tenuous, as shown by several mass resignations of editorial boards that subsequently established competing journals that effectively "took over". (Journal of Algorithms -> ACM Transactions on Algorithms, Topology -> Journal of Topology, etc.)
Universities are not a monolith, they are composed of many independent individuals. It is difficult to convince young researchers (PhD students, Post-Docs, Assistant professors) to "gamble" their future by publishing in new journals. It requires some push from the top, e.g. NSF making it mandatory to publish results from their grants in open access journals.
Isn't it a reasonable request though to demand of university researchers funded by public dollars to be required to publish freely to the public since the public payed for it? Also they can double publish, it could be more of a "all papers are published here for public archival purposes but you can still submit to the journals you want." sort of thing.
The status quo is absolutely unnaceptable.
The status quo is absolutely unnaceptable.
So it's basically one big game of prisoner's dilemma. :)
Just like nearly all parts of human society.
And it's somewhat disheartening to see that even academics (who should be in a position to see what's going on) frequently can't come together to cooperate and be better off.
My experience with academia is that it's a kindergarden. Everybody has silly personal 20+ year vendettas going on.
I'm not at all surprised that academics are unable to co-operate.
Elsevier does provide a service.* They manage paper submissions, format papers, sometimes edit them, publish them, etc. Without Elsevier (or other traditional publishers), this work has to be done elsewhere. It thus may make sense for universities to outsource the publishing to a dedicated company. However, Elsevier has become big enough to dictate the terms of the contract. The German universities are doing a very smart thing in pooling their market power. They don't want anything for free, but they want to pay a reasonable price.
* Edit: Of course, they don't do it in a particularly good way.
* Edit: Of course, they don't do it in a particularly good way.
They "edit" them in the sense that they pay an Indian outsourcing company to fuck up your formatting, then send you a list of typos that aren't.
It varies a lot by field. I'm a computational biologist and have dealt with both the CS and biology ways of doing things. In CS you send a formatted LaTeX manuscript to the publisher and they basically just print that, but the traditional biology way is just to send a Word document with little formatting at all. It is considered the job of the publisher to turn the Word document into something that actually is formatted.
Right (although this depends on the journal). But these problems are a function of Elsevier's immense market power as well.
> Elsevier does provide a service.
Mediocre service, as you say yourself. Furthermore, they earn way above market returns on equity. It's really not a competitive enterprise, but extracting rent (from the tax payer via university library budgets).
Mediocre service, as you say yourself. Furthermore, they earn way above market returns on equity. It's really not a competitive enterprise, but extracting rent (from the tax payer via university library budgets).
Well, there are university presses (although the big ones often unfortunately also benefit from the current system, as they also make quite handsome profits), but the biggest challenge is getting academics to publish in them. In fact, that's not just a challenge for journals by universities, but for all initiatives to start open access journals.
Why that doesn't happen is quite involved, but I've written about it in more detail at https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl...
Why that doesn't happen is quite involved, but I've written about it in more detail at https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl...
Because publishing journals requires a great deal of non-academic work that is not particularly glamorous and which becomes increasingly difficult as you scale operations:
scheduling, organizing, communicating, file management, vendor management, budgeting, large scale data conversion (e.g., Microsoft Word --> XML, image conversions), editing, proofing, and correcting articles, not to mention running a fairly content heavy website with appropriate search/browse options, etc.
Basically, throwing 1 monthly journal (~1000 pages/year) up on a WordPress site is pretty easy (except for the part about dealing with the authors) and could probably be done by a couple people putting in a few hours a week.
Creating a useful web platform for 100s of journals is an entirely different proposition and almost certainly a poor use of universities resources.
Now, they could pay someone to do all that work, but that is pretty much what they are negotiating with Elsevier.
scheduling, organizing, communicating, file management, vendor management, budgeting, large scale data conversion (e.g., Microsoft Word --> XML, image conversions), editing, proofing, and correcting articles, not to mention running a fairly content heavy website with appropriate search/browse options, etc.
Basically, throwing 1 monthly journal (~1000 pages/year) up on a WordPress site is pretty easy (except for the part about dealing with the authors) and could probably be done by a couple people putting in a few hours a week.
Creating a useful web platform for 100s of journals is an entirely different proposition and almost certainly a poor use of universities resources.
Now, they could pay someone to do all that work, but that is pretty much what they are negotiating with Elsevier.
Most of this work is done by academics who are either not paid or paid a nominal sum. Yes, running a journal is a lot of work, but most of the people who do the actual work do not reap the rewards.
Depends on the journal.
Academics usually do the peer reviewing and sometimes the editing (which is almost certainly a waste of their talents as a good editor is cheaper and more efficient at editing than some Biology PhD guy).
Most of the more prestigious journals (e.g., the ones people are paying for) are supported by publishing house staff doing the sort of stuff I mentioned -- or, more likely, managing the vendors in India who are doing the stuff I mentioned.
Source: I worked in scientific publishing for many years. Happy to be out of it...
Academics usually do the peer reviewing and sometimes the editing (which is almost certainly a waste of their talents as a good editor is cheaper and more efficient at editing than some Biology PhD guy).
Most of the more prestigious journals (e.g., the ones people are paying for) are supported by publishing house staff doing the sort of stuff I mentioned -- or, more likely, managing the vendors in India who are doing the stuff I mentioned.
Source: I worked in scientific publishing for many years. Happy to be out of it...
> Most of the more prestigious journals (e.g., the ones people are paying for)
Since most subscriptions are sold in "big deal" packages, where few of the most prestigious journals get bundled with a lot of the less prestigious ones to get libraries to purchase more of the same publisher, it's not just those ones that people are paying for...
Since most subscriptions are sold in "big deal" packages, where few of the most prestigious journals get bundled with a lot of the less prestigious ones to get libraries to purchase more of the same publisher, it's not just those ones that people are paying for...
Are you kidding me? Just because something requires work to be done doesn’t make the value of that work worth billions of dollars.
I don't see where I said it was worth any particular amount.
I was just answering the question about why universities don't just self publish everything.
If Elsevier is overcharging for their services (hint: they are), some startup should go disrupt them or something (hint: the problem will be convincing prestigious authors to publish in your journal rather than Elsevier's).
I was just answering the question about why universities don't just self publish everything.
If Elsevier is overcharging for their services (hint: they are), some startup should go disrupt them or something (hint: the problem will be convincing prestigious authors to publish in your journal rather than Elsevier's).
So we all agree: Elsevier is a vampire squid wrapped around academia (to borrow Matt Taibbi's memorable phrase), extracting tremendous profits (from tax payers via university library funds) for little value provided.
Yeah, they are overcharging, and the problem with individual authors moving to the competition is the prestige/impact factor associated with a journal (ie a prisoners dilemma/coordination problem), and possible solutions are
- concerted action of editorial boards to resign and found a competing journal that "inherits" the prestige (as has happened several times, notably Journal of Algorithms prodded by none other than Don Knuth)
- concerted action of universities/libraries (as in the article)
- government/funding agency intervention to mandate open access publication
- etc.
I hope Elsevier have overextended themselves by refusing to accept half price, and, having their bluff called, receive even less.
Yeah, they are overcharging, and the problem with individual authors moving to the competition is the prestige/impact factor associated with a journal (ie a prisoners dilemma/coordination problem), and possible solutions are
- concerted action of editorial boards to resign and found a competing journal that "inherits" the prestige (as has happened several times, notably Journal of Algorithms prodded by none other than Don Knuth)
- concerted action of universities/libraries (as in the article)
- government/funding agency intervention to mandate open access publication
- etc.
I hope Elsevier have overextended themselves by refusing to accept half price, and, having their bluff called, receive even less.
Yes that’s the point, the prestige is part of the lock-in, but the non-academic work is not relevant, because it’s not part of the reason for the lock-in.
My objection therefore is that merely mentioning such work could suggest to some unfamiliar with the issue that it’s a mitigating factor in Elsevier’s existence.
Who does the grunt work is just a logistical implementation detail.
When you say non-academic I’m not sure how you were envisioning the review process. That part of course is more challenging because you can’t just hire anyone to do it, there could only be a couple qualified people in some cases, they would have to be incented, or at least motivated or effectively compelled in some way to participate. Not trying to overstate the problem, just that it’s a bit bigger challenge than getting the other work done.
My objection therefore is that merely mentioning such work could suggest to some unfamiliar with the issue that it’s a mitigating factor in Elsevier’s existence.
Who does the grunt work is just a logistical implementation detail.
When you say non-academic I’m not sure how you were envisioning the review process. That part of course is more challenging because you can’t just hire anyone to do it, there could only be a couple qualified people in some cases, they would have to be incented, or at least motivated or effectively compelled in some way to participate. Not trying to overstate the problem, just that it’s a bit bigger challenge than getting the other work done.
Honestly, as I know the industry, I wasn't really thinking of the review process as something Elsevier provides that is worth much.
Aside from sending a few emails, the review process is largely managed by academia, although I suppose academia may be happier thinking they are being managed by Elsevier than their peers (who tell Elsevier who to enlist for the work anyway...).
But the non-academic work is what you have to do yourself if you break the lock in.
It is not trivial and as it scales it gets increasingly complex.
There are two moats that protect Elsevier's business.
The first moat is that academics don't trust each other and perpetuate the "Publish or Perish" mindset.
In some disciplines (e.g., Liberal Arts, Math), there isn't enough money flowing through academic circles for this to be a real problem. But for the Life Sciences and some Physical Sciences in particular, there is a lot of government and industry money sloshing around, and academics seem perfectly willing to undercut each other and themselves as a group to get a bigger slice of it.
Elsevier takes advantage of that.
Maybe academics will get mad enough at them over it to unite long enough to break their ability to take advantage of them. Seems like it would be in their best interest to do so.
The second moat is that building a web platform to efficiently distribute hundreds of thousands of pages of content a year while still maintaining access to all the previously published pages is a seriously non-trivial task.
Now just providing that web platform can be done for much less money than is currently paid to publishers.
But, as I'm sure all the web developers and sys admins on hacker news would be happy to point out, hosting terabytes of data and generating consistently formatted HTML/CSS from thousands of individually created Word docs and graphics with nifty social media integrations and customized search/browse options is not a thing that can be done for free at the scale Elsevier is operating at.
Aside from sending a few emails, the review process is largely managed by academia, although I suppose academia may be happier thinking they are being managed by Elsevier than their peers (who tell Elsevier who to enlist for the work anyway...).
But the non-academic work is what you have to do yourself if you break the lock in.
It is not trivial and as it scales it gets increasingly complex.
There are two moats that protect Elsevier's business.
The first moat is that academics don't trust each other and perpetuate the "Publish or Perish" mindset.
In some disciplines (e.g., Liberal Arts, Math), there isn't enough money flowing through academic circles for this to be a real problem. But for the Life Sciences and some Physical Sciences in particular, there is a lot of government and industry money sloshing around, and academics seem perfectly willing to undercut each other and themselves as a group to get a bigger slice of it.
Elsevier takes advantage of that.
Maybe academics will get mad enough at them over it to unite long enough to break their ability to take advantage of them. Seems like it would be in their best interest to do so.
The second moat is that building a web platform to efficiently distribute hundreds of thousands of pages of content a year while still maintaining access to all the previously published pages is a seriously non-trivial task.
Now just providing that web platform can be done for much less money than is currently paid to publishers.
But, as I'm sure all the web developers and sys admins on hacker news would be happy to point out, hosting terabytes of data and generating consistently formatted HTML/CSS from thousands of individually created Word docs and graphics with nifty social media integrations and customized search/browse options is not a thing that can be done for free at the scale Elsevier is operating at.
"universities collaborate" is likely the reason.
Heidelberg University in Germany does exactly that.
This.
Elsevier is not stupid. January without access means:
* most scientis realise it's not necessary
* the smaller rest of them, learn how to use scihub
* elsevier is 10% less on revenue (contrary to giving it 'free access' now and retrocharging later) for every month
* people start publicize in different places, diminishing elsevier value, and proving that you can print elsewhere (sic!)
In result elsevier strong grip ends in a bing bang. Would scientific world hold them for just 3..5 months, and they're out of the business. Simple.
Elsevier is not stupid. January without access means:
* most scientis realise it's not necessary
* the smaller rest of them, learn how to use scihub
* elsevier is 10% less on revenue (contrary to giving it 'free access' now and retrocharging later) for every month
* people start publicize in different places, diminishing elsevier value, and proving that you can print elsewhere (sic!)
In result elsevier strong grip ends in a bing bang. Would scientific world hold them for just 3..5 months, and they're out of the business. Simple.
> * most scientis realise it's not necessary
Each and every scientist is well aware of that. However, their careers are dictated by scientific production metrics, and these involve getting papers accepted by well established publications, and these are often defined by lists of acceptable journals dictated in a top-down manner by universities or even the state, and these lists are composed almost exclusively of... You've guessed it: commercial publications managed by the likes of elsevier.
Each and every scientist is well aware of that. However, their careers are dictated by scientific production metrics, and these involve getting papers accepted by well established publications, and these are often defined by lists of acceptable journals dictated in a top-down manner by universities or even the state, and these lists are composed almost exclusively of... You've guessed it: commercial publications managed by the likes of elsevier.
That's mostly relevant when it comes to choosing where to publish. When choosing what to read, however, the expectation is that they can mostly do without subscriptions.
However, if that means that German researchers (and perhaps later others as well) are less likely to read work published in Elsevier journals, that might in turn lead to people being less likely to publish there - because of those same metrics. If fewer researchers read your work, fewer will cite it.
However, if that means that German researchers (and perhaps later others as well) are less likely to read work published in Elsevier journals, that might in turn lead to people being less likely to publish there - because of those same metrics. If fewer researchers read your work, fewer will cite it.
So, just download them from scihub.
You don't advance your career with downloads. You advance your career with publications. Even if you decide to quote your local TV Guide in your papers, you still need to meet publishing quotas to justify your present and future grants, and the only thing that counts is getting your work published in well-established publications.
In Brazil, last year there was a long strike by bank agency employees for bigger salaries. It went barelly noticed because most of bank services now can be performed online or through ATMs (even among the poor, as someone who is so poor to not have a smartphone, also is too poor to use a bank).
More than 20 days of all agencies closed and almost no one cared. I am sure it actually weakened their position.
More than 20 days of all agencies closed and almost no one cared. I am sure it actually weakened their position.
>“Most papers are now freely available somewhere on the Internet, or else you might choose to work with preprint versions. Clearly our negotiating position is strong. It is not clear that we want or need a paid extension of the old contracts.”
Awesome! It's going to be fun when Elsevier eventually tries to go after SciHub in Germany for copyright violations. I can imagine state prosecutors asking: "So you want us to prosecute someone for not paying you for access to public research?". One can hope...
Awesome! It's going to be fun when Elsevier eventually tries to go after SciHub in Germany for copyright violations. I can imagine state prosecutors asking: "So you want us to prosecute someone for not paying you for access to public research?". One can hope...
I don't think Elsevier see SciHub as the biggest threat. No, the biggest threat is that now the EU has told researchers "You have to publish OA", researchers have two options: publish preprints of everything, or start paying Elsevier loads of cash. Obviously everyone is now starting to do the first option (usually via institutional repos, which at least Google Scholar indexes). And people are finding it to be a good low-effort system.
Elsevier lost when they agreed to allow people (mostly just some people in math and physics back then) to post preprints online.
Elsevier lost when they agreed to allow people (mostly just some people in math and physics back then) to post preprints online.
I think you are overestimating the system. Researchers are going for the second option in large droves, as that's the one that helps their career forward, and it's often not their own money they're paying with.
If you're interested, I've written about why they're forced to do so at [1] and [2]. (And the reason I'm following it so closely is because I'm trying to fix it - if you want to follow that, see [3].)
[1] https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl...
[2] https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca...
[3] https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic
If you're interested, I've written about why they're forced to do so at [1] and [2]. (And the reason I'm following it so closely is because I'm trying to fix it - if you want to follow that, see [3].)
[1] https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl...
[2] https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca...
[3] https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic
Well, it's not their own money (to spend on coke and whores), but typically those are still their research funds so they have to make a decision as to whether to publish or buy new equipment, supplies, or get another TA/RA position. Often the funds are pre-loaded with overhead for the department so it's more expensive than it appears.
Indexed preprints make a whole lot of sense, if they'll let you do it.
Indexed preprints make a whole lot of sense, if they'll let you do it.
Well, to some extent. If it's their own research funds, they will have to consider what's better for their career, and often, that publication will win over new equipment, for example.
That said, there are often funds available from e.g. the library, your funder, or even nationwide funds such as in the Netherlands and I think the UK, that will cover the costs of making articles available as open access. It's pretty much a no-brainer to use them for researchers.
That said, there are often funds available from e.g. the library, your funder, or even nationwide funds such as in the Netherlands and I think the UK, that will cover the costs of making articles available as open access. It's pretty much a no-brainer to use them for researchers.
Obviously everyone is now starting to do the first option
Not in my experience or at least no exclusively. A lot of researchers are paying for open access. Sure they all grumble about it and think it's a stupid system, but since it's neither their money nor in many cases their decision, they still do it.
Not in my experience or at least no exclusively. A lot of researchers are paying for open access. Sure they all grumble about it and think it's a stupid system, but since it's neither their money nor in many cases their decision, they still do it.
SciHub is not located in Germany so there's little they can do.
There's precedent for blocking DNS and other similar stuff. It's effective for a general audience but probably not most of the scientific one.
They've managed to get many of the domains blocked already, but it's such a game of whack-a-mole that it doesn't really help.
Is SciHub still reachable somewhere?
I try to keep this post updated with the latest accessible links: https://citationsy.com/blog/download-research-papers-scienti...
80.82.77.83
80.82.77.84
sci-hub.la sci-hub.hk sci-hub.tv sci-hub.tw sci-hub.name sci-hub.mn
See the Wikipedia entry
sci-hub.la sci-hub.hk sci-hub.tv sci-hub.tw sci-hub.name sci-hub.mn
See the Wikipedia entry
> Is SciHub still reachable somewhere?
Yes: scihub22266oqcxt.onion
Yes: scihub22266oqcxt.onion
With the help of proxies, https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/7ioo0m/working_scih...
You need something like Tor Browser to access it https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en
Please don't, services like that act like MiTM, and they won't work anymore with v3 onion service (Scihub's onion is still v2).
Yes, Wikipedia usually lists the working domains. But, of course, it's probably not legal.
Related: I'm constantly amazed that Google Books is still alive.
It's barely alive and it doesn't even resemble what it was supposed to be. Google Books was originally meant to scan - and make available online - all of the worlds books within 10 years. The New Yorker has a good article on how and why it failed [1].
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happen...
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happen...
I use Google Books. I hope it doesn't go away. My biggest gripe, though, is the inability to download books, even books that I've uploaded from a local file.
Google Books I can understand the argument against. There are actual copyrights to protect. In the case of research Elsevier does approximately nothing. The research and the peer review has already been paid for by every one of us. That we then don't get free access to it is a scandal.
States could solve this whole mess tomorrow by just passing a law that states "if you take our money to do research the end result needs to be available to the general public for free". The chicken-and-egg problem of everyone just moving to open-access journals for everything would be solved.
States could solve this whole mess tomorrow by just passing a law that states "if you take our money to do research the end result needs to be available to the general public for free". The chicken-and-egg problem of everyone just moving to open-access journals for everything would be solved.
Agree about the legitimate copyright issues, and agree about the open access chicken-and-egg.
A law would be best, that way it instantly applies to all government grants, but it could just be terms of the grant money. "In accepting these funds you agree to only publish through open access."
A law would be best, that way it instantly applies to all government grants, but it could just be terms of the grant money. "In accepting these funds you agree to only publish through open access."
I disagree because it's not even just about grants. At least in Europe most researchers are government employees so I don't care if your grant money is private, open access is still a basic requirement. If you want to publish research that requires me to pay 30$ an article to access you better not be doing that from a publicly funded job.
Interesting move, to give free access. You would think that, withholding access is a great way for Elsivier to increase pressure in the negotiation. The fact, that they are not doing it, shows how weak their position really is.
Researchers will (and have) find effective ways to share research results w/o traditional publishers. This would surface very quickly once access was temporarily revoked.
Researchers will (and have) find effective ways to share research results w/o traditional publishers. This would surface very quickly once access was temporarily revoked.
> shows how weak their position really is
Or Elsevier’s belief that the opposition is tenuously formed. If temporary free access prompts a critical mass to decamp, Elsevier will have staved off both permanence and precedent.
Or Elsevier’s belief that the opposition is tenuously formed. If temporary free access prompts a critical mass to decamp, Elsevier will have staved off both permanence and precedent.
They must also have good PR. It's not like they don't have money to hire someone good. I think it's partially a PR move. In recent years, their image has been shaken, as they have been accused of being greedy. Now, all this shaking has brought them face to face with a big "client", with a strong hand. "Hey, look, I can be nice too!"
If a critical mass decamps, they still don't have a contract with Elsevier.
I don't see how granting free access unilaterally improves their negotiation position other than goodwill in manipulating the executive and legislative government..
I don't see how granting free access unilaterally improves their negotiation position other than goodwill in manipulating the executive and legislative government..
Why would that prompt them to decamp?
> Why would that prompt them to decamp?
People tend to become politically involved (loosely defined) when desperate. Remove the source of desperation and engagement fades. Convincing people to come to a meeting or go to a rally or draft a letter to the dean or call or write to their representative gets harder when the problem goes from specific, e.g. I need X study to write my paper, to abstract.
People tend to become politically involved (loosely defined) when desperate. Remove the source of desperation and engagement fades. Convincing people to come to a meeting or go to a rally or draft a letter to the dean or call or write to their representative gets harder when the problem goes from specific, e.g. I need X study to write my paper, to abstract.
But there was no source of desperation yet - there has not been a period in which researchers have not had access.
(Well, technically, there was a short one at the start of last year IIRC, but Elsevier prolonged access then just as well.)
(Well, technically, there was a short one at the start of last year IIRC, but Elsevier prolonged access then just as well.)
Temporarily, presumably because they now have free access? At least amongst those who simply want access in the short-term, and aren't hardcore campaigners for the cause.
I don't think the negotiators representing the German universities belong in that camp :)
> I don't think the negotiators representing the German universities belong in that camp
Some fraction of the people whose support is necessary for the negotiators to remain empowered are. The question is how many.
Some fraction of the people whose support is necessary for the negotiators to remain empowered are. The question is how many.
Of course, but if they no longer really care about open access because they got some free access for now (which I really think is the case for practically zero of them), they also probably don't care enough to actively tell the negotiators that they're withdrawing support.
Here is a list of universities and other institutions which have cancelled their contracts with Elsevier: https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-201...
Basically everyone... All top universities are in the list...
Reading that list warmed my heart. Hasta la vista, Elsevier!
> The nationwide deal sought by scientists includes a open-access option, under which all corresponding authors affiliated with German institutions would be allowed to make their papers free to read and share by anyone in the world.
This is a very good clause to the German institutions. Everybody will like to exchange letters, informations, get in contact with German authors. And when we have communication, we have knowledge and data sharing, and everybody benefits from it. Specially the corresponding authors.
This is a very good clause to the German institutions. Everybody will like to exchange letters, informations, get in contact with German authors. And when we have communication, we have knowledge and data sharing, and everybody benefits from it. Specially the corresponding authors.
That's already often allowed. What the negotiators will want is that all those papers will be free to read (or actually: use, under a permissive Creative Commons license) by default.
Great developments. I am a bit pessimistic, however, as Elsevier still has all the publications related to the life and medical sciences in a stranglehold. I think the lacklustre adoption of preprint publishing in these fields is partly to blame.
There is an increasing awareness of the "reproducibility crisis"[1] where it seems a large portion of published scientific studies have dubious findings.
I wonder if this is another argument to overthrow Elsevier to as clearly their peer review for publication is a poor filter. Or, is it possible the peer review process will become even weaker in a new more open paradigm?
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
I wonder if this is another argument to overthrow Elsevier to as clearly their peer review for publication is a poor filter. Or, is it possible the peer review process will become even weaker in a new more open paradigm?
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
It's not Elsevier-specific peer review that's under scrutiny, but institutionalised peer review in general. That's said, that's still only among a minority of academics, and considering academia is pretty conservative, I don't think that that will play a large role in this situation.
Maybe for open Internet publishing, instead of publish/don't publish peer review, it'd make sense to have a rating of the reproducibility. If you could search only for reproducible papers that met a threshold, you'd know what you were reading.
Unfortunately, that requires people to actually attempt to reproduce papers and to publish about that, and often nobody wants to fund that.
Elsevier and their lackeys and running dogs of documentary oppression are nothing more than an elevated street gang that uses the assigned mandatory copyright. Copyright has expanded without limit and now acts as the weapon that Elsevier wields against the people. Look at how the Disney Corp lobbied for ever longer copyrights.
This can only be solved by national governments taking back academic authors rights by law. Sadly Elsevier bribes (AKA 'lobbys') with their war chest of money stolen from authors.
With current cloud tech, they could be replaced in days. All the prior archives should also be freed by legislation.
amygdyl(1)
Is there a service where I could pay around $5-$10 a month and get access to all (most) relevant papers?
I'm not a scientist, I'm not affiliated with any academic institution at the moment (I still TA here and there though).
I'm not a scientist, I'm not affiliated with any academic institution at the moment (I still TA here and there though).
DeepDyve is the closest legal option I am aware of.
https://www.deepdyve.com/
I tried their service before and did not like that the papers had to be read in the browser. I'd prefer living near a research library.
https://www.deepdyve.com/
I tried their service before and did not like that the papers had to be read in the browser. I'd prefer living near a research library.
arxiv.org? I’m not sure they take individual donations, though.
You could possibly give to Cornell Fund for the Library [1] and tell them it's for arXiV.
(Don't know if this is true for Cornell, but my own alma mater will accept and confirm arbitrary earmarks, even on small donations. It encourages more donations, and it doesn't actually mess with their priorities because money is fungible.)
[1] https://alumni.library.cornell.edu/content/give-library
(Don't know if this is true for Cornell, but my own alma mater will accept and confirm arbitrary earmarks, even on small donations. It encourages more donations, and it doesn't actually mess with their priorities because money is fungible.)
[1] https://alumni.library.cornell.edu/content/give-library
Unfortunately, not really. Closest you can get is find out for each article you encounter whether there's also a legal version available elsewhere online (which is increasingly often the case) using tools such as Unpaywall [1] and OAButton [2].
[1] http://unpaywall.org/ [2] https://openaccessbutton.org/
[1] http://unpaywall.org/ [2] https://openaccessbutton.org/
"Most papers are now freely available somewhere on the Internet, or else you might choose to work with preprint versions."
This is a huge win for proponents of free information sharing like Scihub and others. Germany's argument seems to basically boil down to, make us a favorable deal or we'll just pirate or obtain from other sources and Elsevier will lose out completely. Brilliant! I love their boldness and willingness to have some balls to fight for science instead of corporate greed in this negotiation.
This is a huge win for proponents of free information sharing like Scihub and others. Germany's argument seems to basically boil down to, make us a favorable deal or we'll just pirate or obtain from other sources and Elsevier will lose out completely. Brilliant! I love their boldness and willingness to have some balls to fight for science instead of corporate greed in this negotiation.
While I'm sure they're aware of Sci-Hub, they're not referring to that (well, not explicitly...). For example, another option is inter-library loan.
That's hilarious. Elsevier will lose this fight for sure...it's exactly the type of thing Germans will stubbornly dig in their feet out of principle for.
I get recruitment spam from Elsevier recruiters a lot, I wasn't entirely sure of what they did (at University we had subscriptions to IEEE and ACM and another one I can't recall the name of for CS stuff) so the name wasn't familiar to me.
I'm still not enitirely sure what value they offer?
I'm still not enitirely sure what value they offer?
A lot of life sciences papers are published in Elsevier journals. Unfortunately, there are very few pre-prints.
meh. sci-hub.tv has permanent free access
How exactly are the DNS blocks happening? How did you find this domain that is still working?
I look at their Facebook page, generally: https://www.facebook.com/sci.hub.org/ From one Gustavo Rosa on Facebook:
All these domains are working!
http://sci-hub.la/
http://sci-hub.hk/
http://sci-hub.mn/
http://sci-hub.name/
http://sci-hub.tv
http://sci-hub.tw
http://tree.sci-hub.la/
http://80.82.77.84/
http://80.82.77.83/
All these domains are working!
http://sci-hub.la/
http://sci-hub.hk/
http://sci-hub.mn/
http://sci-hub.name/
http://sci-hub.tv
http://sci-hub.tw
http://tree.sci-hub.la/
http://80.82.77.84/
http://80.82.77.83/
Wikipedia's page on Sci-Hub is usually pretty quickly updated with the still relevant URLs. It's rather interesting to watch, as they also list outdated URLs. Really exemplifies what a whack-a-mole game it is.
Wondering why SciHub is not yet on some sort of IPFS / FreeNet / Tor Storage something. Plain file storage obviously would not be enough, metadata and possibly full text index would have to be stored with each entry. Searchable. could even come with a recommendation service like Mendeley or Researchgate based on which papers you pinned in your client.
The Sci-Hub website is (and will likely remain) reachable through Tor, Wikipedia lists its Onion address.
another one still working is their .hk domain.
It's probably a matter of whether the TLD/registrar gives in to US interests. ICANN might also have a say.
Their onion address should always work: scihub22266oqcxt.onion
What is the role of the publisher? I think there are many ways to publish things nowadays... Is the publisher responsible for peer review? Or how does that system work?
The value that rests with the publisher is mainly the reputation of specific journals it maintains. In some (most?) scientific fields, publishing in a high-reputation journal is of primary importance for grant funding, author's job prospects, attracting top talent, etc.
For example, the Journal of Membrane Science is one of the most highly regarded journals in my field. Anyone in the field can be pretty confident that an article in that journal is a high-quality work, meaning it's scientifically rigorous and representative of the state of the art. Researchers want to publish in that journal so that they are associated with 'the best' in their field.
Articles in another journal, Membranes, which I just discovered now on Google, would not receive the same amount of credence from professionals in the field. This is partly due to practitioners themselves unwilling to trust lesser-known journals; however, professionals are busy and need an easy way to filter feed from the chaff. The value provided by Elsevier in that sense is that they maintain a type of filter of quality.
I'm sure all of the same authors and professionals could start a new journal and immediately stop publishing in Journal of Membrane Science, but it could be a less-than-optimal career choice. In a sense, timing would be everything.
For example, the Journal of Membrane Science is one of the most highly regarded journals in my field. Anyone in the field can be pretty confident that an article in that journal is a high-quality work, meaning it's scientifically rigorous and representative of the state of the art. Researchers want to publish in that journal so that they are associated with 'the best' in their field.
Articles in another journal, Membranes, which I just discovered now on Google, would not receive the same amount of credence from professionals in the field. This is partly due to practitioners themselves unwilling to trust lesser-known journals; however, professionals are busy and need an easy way to filter feed from the chaff. The value provided by Elsevier in that sense is that they maintain a type of filter of quality.
I'm sure all of the same authors and professionals could start a new journal and immediately stop publishing in Journal of Membrane Science, but it could be a less-than-optimal career choice. In a sense, timing would be everything.
Well... The value Elsevier provides is that it attracts the people who maintain the filter of quality - namely the editorial board.
An interesting case is Lingua, an Elsevier journal. A few years ago, its editorial board (i.e. regular researchers not employed by Elsevier) collectively resigned and founded the new journal Glossa. That is now the journal that provides that stamp of quality, proving that its not Elsevier itself that provides it.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossa_(journal)
An interesting case is Lingua, an Elsevier journal. A few years ago, its editorial board (i.e. regular researchers not employed by Elsevier) collectively resigned and founded the new journal Glossa. That is now the journal that provides that stamp of quality, proving that its not Elsevier itself that provides it.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossa_(journal)
> its editorial board (i.e. regular researchers not employed by Elsevier) collectively resigned
Cases that might be closer to many HN readers are:
1999: Journal of Logic Programming editorial board resigned and created Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
2003: Journal of Algorithms board resigned and founded ACM Transactions on Algorithms, prodded by Don Knuth (see links)
2006: Topology -> Journal of Topology
So, it is possible to overcome the coordination problem and cooperate to defeat Elsevier.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Ehal/jalg.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557667
Cases that might be closer to many HN readers are:
1999: Journal of Logic Programming editorial board resigned and created Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
2003: Journal of Algorithms board resigned and founded ACM Transactions on Algorithms, prodded by Don Knuth (see links)
2006: Topology -> Journal of Topology
So, it is possible to overcome the coordination problem and cooperate to defeat Elsevier.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Ehal/jalg.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557667
Cool thanks for the link on Glossa. I always thought it was possible for a collective resignation of an editorial board but I've never seen it realized.
I'm curious why/how it was possible for them to do it. The Wikipedia link mentions that there was a disagreement between the editors and Elsevier. How were the editors able to collectively organize and leave en masse? What can editorial boards of other journals learn from this?
I'm curious why/how it was possible for them to do it. The Wikipedia link mentions that there was a disagreement between the editors and Elsevier. How were the editors able to collectively organize and leave en masse? What can editorial boards of other journals learn from this?
There were a number of favourable circumstances. I think the most important two were that 1) the editorial board had many who considered Open Access to be important, and 2) it was a relatively small field in which they managed to get their transition relatively well publicised, which allowed people to submit their articles there without negatively impacting their career.
Interestingly, I'm working on a blog post right now on what others can learn from this (because I'm trying to make it happen more often), so if you (or others reading this) are interested, you can follow along via https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic
Interestingly, I'm working on a blog post right now on what others can learn from this (because I'm trying to make it happen more often), so if you (or others reading this) are interested, you can follow along via https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic
> I always thought it was possible for a collective resignation of an editorial board but I've never seen it realized.
As can be seen in the Elsevier Wikipedia page, it has happened several times (not often enough). The Journal of Algorithms case is instructive [1]. Any individual researcher that "fights" the publisher will lose out, but collectively in a concerted move one can be successful.
I think Don Knuth provided enough credibility to transfer the prestige of the journal, and enough of a towering figure to give everyone the impetus to go ahead with the defection collectively.
It would be very interesting to examine cases where this worked successfully and where it failed (or wasn't attempted) and see what differentiates them. I'm pretty sure Elsevier is examining these cases very carefully...
[1] http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Ehal/jalg.html
As can be seen in the Elsevier Wikipedia page, it has happened several times (not often enough). The Journal of Algorithms case is instructive [1]. Any individual researcher that "fights" the publisher will lose out, but collectively in a concerted move one can be successful.
I think Don Knuth provided enough credibility to transfer the prestige of the journal, and enough of a towering figure to give everyone the impetus to go ahead with the defection collectively.
It would be very interesting to examine cases where this worked successfully and where it failed (or wasn't attempted) and see what differentiates them. I'm pretty sure Elsevier is examining these cases very carefully...
[1] http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Ehal/jalg.html
Peer review is done by fellow researchers, without being paid by the publisher. However, the publisher does find the editorial board (and sometimes pays them) that finds the peer reviewers, often (but less and less so) provides typesetting and proof reading services, and most importantly provide the infrastructure that makes the articles available and makes sure that they remain available in the future.
(And there's a ton of other things, like making sure people pay to access articles when they have a subscription and the like, but those are services they provide to themselves...)
(And there's a ton of other things, like making sure people pay to access articles when they have a subscription and the like, but those are services they provide to themselves...)
For well-established journals, the editorial board finds new editors, so there is no cost involved for publishers.
With respect to typesetting and proofreading, my personal experience is that the 'service' provided by Elsevier was of such a low quality that it actually caused _increased_ effort on the author's side.
Making the articles available is indeed the core business of a publisher. However, prices for that kind of service should have decreased significantly over the last two decades, not increased.
With respect to typesetting and proofreading, my personal experience is that the 'service' provided by Elsevier was of such a low quality that it actually caused _increased_ effort on the author's side.
Making the articles available is indeed the core business of a publisher. However, prices for that kind of service should have decreased significantly over the last two decades, not increased.
Yes, to be clear: I am not arguing that the value they provide justifies in any way the extortionate fees they're asking. Quite the opposite, in fact - I believe it's mostly "justified" (or at least made possible) through a disfunctioning market.
They tend to organise peer review but they don't actually do it, it's volunteer work. They also usually pay the editor of the journal and assemble the thing, performing the few remaining non-automated DTP tasks required to produce a physical journal. Unless it's online-only.
The insider gossip is that the CEO ordered for access to be kept open.
• Teilnehmereinrichtungen: alle zur Teilnahme an Allianz- und Nationallizenzen berechtigten Einrichtungen in Deutschland.
• Die DEAL-Einrichtungen haben dauerhaften Volltextzugriff auf das gesamte Titel-Portfolio (E-Journals) der ausgewählten Verlage.
• Alle Publikationen von Autorinnen und Autoren aus deutschen Einrichtungen werden automatisch Open Access geschaltet (CC-BY, inkl. Peer Review).
• Angemessene Bepreisung nach einem einfachen, zukunftsorientierten Berechnungsmodell, das sich am Publikationsaufkommen orientiert.
Basically: Give us access to everything you have, publish all our authors open access, and we'll pay you an appropriate amount, relative to how many papers of ours you publish. They call this the PAR model, for publish&read. Springer and Wiley have in principle agreed to negotiate a PAR license [1].
This would be enormous, especially as other countries would have a blueprint what to ask for. It also shows just how poorly the UK has handled their renegotiation (it was generally seen as the UK caving completely) [2].
[1] An English presentation from the end of last year on the state of things: https://www.projekt-deal.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-...
[2] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/time-for-elsexit/