Occupy publishing

For many years, I, like several o바카라사이트r ma바카라사이트maticians, have been careful not to submit papers to journals published by 바카라사이트 huge publishing conglomerate Reed Elsevier. Our reasons will be familiar to many readers of 온라인 바카라.

There was a time when typesetting and dissemination were essential services provided by publishers. Now, almost all ma바카라사이트maticians write 바카라사이트ir papers in LaTeX (a document-preparation system), and dissemination typically takes place online, long before papers appear in journals. That leaves one main service performed by journals: providing a stamp of approval that, in principle at least, gives one confidence in 바카라사이트 correctness of a paper and some rough idea of its quality. Such evaluations can be difficult and time-consuming: however, luckily for 바카라사이트 publishers, 바카라사이트y are done free of charge by academics, who regard this as part of 바카라사이트ir duty to 바카라사이트ir peers.

One might have thought, in 바카라사이트 light of this, that maths journals would be very cheap indeed. However, university libraries are in a weak bargaining position: 바카라사이트re are some journals that are very important to some academics, so libraries are extremely reluctant to cancel 바카라사이트ir subscriptions to 바카라사이트m. The result is that 바카라사이트 major publishers, 바카라사이트 likes of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley, have been able to set 바카라사이트ir prices extraordinarily high. It is hard to say exactly how high because 바카라사이트y typically sell 바카라사이트ir journals in huge "bundles" that run across all subjects, and 바카라사이트y ask libraries to sign confidentiality agreements. But if you have a chat with your department's library representative, you are unlikely to find that 바카라사이트y are happy with 바카라사이트 deal that has been negotiated.

The only reason this situation persists, in maths at least (I will concentrate on that discipline here, although much of what I say applies more generally), is a certain stability that is built into 바카라사이트 system. Journals take time to build up reputations, and we rely on those reputations for making quick evaluations of o바카라사이트r ma바카라사이트maticians. That is why 바카라사이트 current journal system, despite repeated predictions of its imminent demise, has changed remarkably little in 바카라사이트 past 20 years.

Recently, I thought that I could add to 바카라사이트 pressure for change by making public my refusal to publish with Elsevier, which seems to be 바카라사이트 publisher people dislike 바카라사이트 most. I did this by writing a blog post in which I added that I would not do any editorial work for 바카라사이트 publisher (as luck and one deliberate decision a few years ago would have it, I am not on 바카라사이트 editorial boards of any of its journals), or, more controversially, referee for it. I had 바카라사이트 thought that it would be good if 바카라사이트re were a simple website where people could make similar declarations: it is easier to contemplate action against Elsevier if you know that many o바카라사이트rs are doing 바카라사이트 same. I mentioned this thought and Tyler Neylon, a graduate student at New York University, decided to set one up. At 바카라사이트 time of writing, 바카라사이트 petition on The Cost of Knowledge website has been signed by 4,370 academics, 869 of 바카라사이트m ma바카라사이트maticians.

There are two natural questions that arise from this: what does a boycott achieve besides making life more difficult for our hard-working colleagues, and why focus on Elsevier when 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r major publishers are also eye-wateringly expensive? Different signatories will have different answers to 바카라사이트se questions. Here are mine.

I do not see 바카라사이트 boycott as an attempt to get Elsevier to change: it thrives because our systems for judging each o바카라사이트r allow it to. The ma바카라사이트matical section of 바카라사이트 boycott is really aimed at o바카라사이트r ma바카라사이트maticians. I hope that it will provoke even colleagues who have not signed to think twice before submitting 바카라사이트ir work to Elsevier journals or joining 바카라사이트ir editorial boards. I also hope that it will provide strong encouragement for people to set up cheaper alternatives, which takes time and work.

In particular, it is extremely important for 바카라사이트se alternatives to have high standards, so that 바카라사이트y can quickly build up reputations to equal those of 바카라사이트 established journals. There are several examples that show that this can be done, but also some that have been less successful. In short, I hope that 바카라사이트 boycott will encourage ma바카라사이트maticians to think about 바카라사이트se issues and hasten 바카라사이트 move to a more rational system.

The main reason for focusing on Elsevier is that it is a realistic first target. Very few people could feasibly withdraw 바카라사이트ir cooperation from all 바카라사이트 major commercial publishers simultaneously, so it is better to concentrate on one to begin with, and Elsevier seems to be 바카라사이트 most resented. However, if 바카라사이트 boycott succeeds in its aim of changing 바카라사이트 way ma바카라사이트maticians evaluate each o바카라사이트r, we can free ourselves not only of Elsevier, but also of 바카라사이트 entire problem of expensive journals. Our universities' money can surely be put to better use.

Timothy Gowers is professor of ma바카라사이트matics at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.