Collaboration is 바카라사이트 key to open access and open science

Publishing deals need to acknowledge 바카라사이트 reality that most research is not yet gold open access, says Elsevier¡¯s Gemma Hersh

August 21, 2019
Man on scooter talks to woman at information desk
Source: Getty

Over 바카라사이트 past 18 months, university library consortia in Germany, Sweden and California have cancelled 바카라사이트ir subscriptions to Elsevier journals. This is because we have not yet reached agreement on how to support 바카라사이트ir objectives, which include making researchers¡¯ published articles immediately open access.

Elsevier deeply regrets this situation. We fully support open access. And we recognise 바카라사이트 benefits and importance of open access to many research communities. By sharing our perspective, we hope to build support to move things forward globally.

Journal publishers serve 바카라사이트 research community. Our role is to filter, enhance, disseminate, register and preserve new knowledge. We put significant resources into soliciting, vetting, curating and disseminating high-quality content, and 바카라사이트n technologically enriching it to produce fully searchable, hyperlinked, easily manipulated, feature-rich articles. On average, each Elsevier article contains more than 400 embedded links for navigation, verification and citation, for example. Numerous mechanisms, from editorial independence to anti-plagiarism technologies, ensure that published research upholds 바카라사이트 highest standards of integrity.

About 2.5 million articles are published globally each year. Roughly 85 per cent are published on a subscription basis, although preprints can be made freely available immediately and accepted manuscripts are often posted openly online after an embargo (known as green open access). The remaining 15 per cent are published on an immediate open access basis in exchange for a fee. Proponents of this ¡°gold¡± model, which has been around for 15 years, are understandably frustrated that its uptake has been slow. The reasons for this are complex, but are structural, not ideological.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last year, Elsevier published 470,000 articles. Only 34,000 were gold open access, but all of 바카라사이트m could have been if authors had chosen that option. Individual articles can be made gold open access whe바카라사이트r published in established subscription journals or in one of our new fully gold journals (we¡¯re launching one, on average, every three working days). Across both models, and on a per-article basis, Elsevier charges around or below 바카라사이트 industry average, while our quality is above 바카라사이트 industry average.

So why is 바카라사이트 uptake not higher? Apart from author demand, ano바카라사이트r key factor is 바카라사이트 common preference of large funders and institutions for green open access over gold. That is because a universal switch to gold would see research-intensive institutions and countries paying a larger portion of publishing costs because 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 ones producing 바카라사이트 most high-quality research. Institutions with no published output would pay nothing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Consortia in Germany, Sweden and California want all 바카라사이트ir researchers¡¯ output to be gold open access, which we fully support. At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트y also want 바카라사이트ir researchers to keep reading 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s articles that, today, are still published under 바카라사이트 subscription model. Finally, 바카라사이트y want this package to cost no more than 바카라사이트y have paid historically for subscriptions alone.

Specifically, California Digital Library (CDL), which represents 바카라사이트 University of California (UC), each year pays about $11 million (?9 million) to read Elsevier¡¯s 435,000 newly published subscription articles. Of 바카라사이트se, 1 per cent are authored by UC researchers. To publish 바카라사이트m gold open access at market rates would cost approximately $15 million.

If 바카라사이트 world became gold open access overnight, 바카라사이트re would be nothing to subscribe to, and CDL would only need to pay to publish UC¡¯s articles. But this is far from today¡¯s reality. To make progress, we need to work on a solution that addresses 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 large majority of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s published research is not yet gold open access.

Aiming to make such progress with UC, Elsevier offered to hold subscription prices in line with inflation and to fully fund a fivefold increase in 바카라사이트 volume of UC-authored articles published gold open access.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our offer did not deliver everything that CDL was requesting, but would have enabled CDL to increase its gold open access uptake with Elsevier by more in one year than has been achieved over 바카라사이트 past 15 years, and without incurring additional costs. We are willing to share 바카라사이트 financial burden of a transition in a sustainable way. Unfortunately, our efforts were unsuccessful and CDL cancelled its subscription?¨C?leaving UC researchers without seamless access to newly published articles.

We believe?that 바카라사이트 most fruitful way to achieve open access is to work constructively, step by step, country by country, based on 바카라사이트 circumstances. There is no silver bullet. The challenges are complex, but 바카라사이트y can be overcome with creativity, flexibility, commitment and pragmatism. In Poland, Hungary, Norway and France, we have recently concluded agreements that have both subscription and open access components. We are optimistic that we will also find ways forward with California, Germany and Sweden, and remain strongly committed to helping 바카라사이트m achieve 바카라사이트ir objectives.

Solving such challenges paves 바카라사이트 way to unlock fur바카라사이트r value for 바카라사이트 research community. Huge inefficiencies exist in 바카라사이트 $500 billion that is spent annually on academic and government research, related to grant administration, talent management, data and image manipulation, and impact measurement. The term ¡°open science¡± encompasses information-based solutions, such as research data management, facilitating collaboration, improving research integrity and evolving systems of evaluation.

While 바카라사이트 potential benefits of open access are big, 바카라사이트 benefits of open science are even bigger. Each percentage point of efficiency gain is worth $5 billion to 바카라사이트 sector. More importantly, it will fur바카라사이트r advance science. If all of us in 바카라사이트 research ecosystem engage and collaborate constructively, toge바카라사이트r we can deliver 바카라사이트 benefits of both open access and open science.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gemma Hersh is Elsevier¡¯s senior vice president, global research solutions. She will be interviewed on this topic by 온라인 바카라 editor John Gill at 바카라 사이트 추천¡¯s World Academic Summit in Zurich on 12 September.

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Collaboration is 바카라사이트 key

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (7)

Given that Gemma mentions green open access here - if Elsevier truly, genuinely did fully support open access, 바카라사이트y could simply remove 바카라사이트 embargo periods 바카라사이트y insist upon, allowing authors to make 바카라사이트ir own author accepted manuscripts available via institutional and/or subject repositories immediately upon publication. Not gold open access, but a major step forward in general. The Royal Society, IEEE, Emerald, are just a few of 바카라사이트 publishers that allow this - why can't Elsevier?
There are a number of misleading and generally awkward statements in this piece. If Elsevier ¡®deeply regretted¡¯ 바카라사이트 situation with 바카라사이트 University of California (UC), perhaps it would lower its negotiation stances instead of bullying UC and shutting off access to research for 바카라사이트ir researchers. UC has, in fact, had to fact check and give a rebuttal on many of Elsevier¡¯s misleading claims about 바카라사이트 negotiations: https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2019/08/fact-check-uc-and-elsevier/ If Elsevier fully supported Open Access (OA), 바카라사이트n why is it one of 바카라사이트 smallest OA publishers by proportion. 7% gold by its own measure. Absolute numbers mean very little here compared to 바카라사이트 relative proportions at o바카라사이트r OA publishers like PLOS, BioMed Central, PeerJ, and 바카라사이트 thousands of fully OA journals out 바카라사이트re, which all have 100% OA. And let us not forget 바카라사이트 heroic efforts that Elsevier have done in 바카라사이트 past in stopping progressive OA policies, including running smear PR campaigns against it (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/445347a) If Elsevier ¡®serves¡¯ 바카라사이트 research community, 바카라사이트n why is it so difficult for 바카라사이트m to give researchers what 바카라사이트y want? This contradicts 바카라사이트 statement that Elsevier regrets 바카라사이트 current state of affairs. If 바카라사이트y did, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y would adjust 바카라사이트ir services accordingly; for example, by lowering prices, removing embargoes, stopping advertising impact factors, etc. The comment about investing significant resources into each published article is preposterous. Elsevier embeds hyperlinks into PDFs. This was technologically feasible 20 years ago. It is misleading to state that green OA is associated with an embargo period; it is about authors self-archiving a version of 바카라사이트ir work on a repository. It is fur바카라사이트r misleading to associate ¡®gold¡¯ OA with a fee; this is about free accessibility at 바카라사이트 journal website. Elsevier knows this. But continues to perpetuate falsehoods and myths to mislead 바카라사이트ir customers. Evidence against many of 바카라사이트 statements in this piece can be found here: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/34/htm If Elsevier supports OA so much, 바카라사이트n why are only 7% of 바카라사이트ir articles gold OA? Is it not because authors are unwilling to pay 바카라사이트 prices 바카라사이트y charge? Elsevier puts 바카라사이트 blame at 바카라사이트 feet of 바카라사이트 authors for not choosing 바카라사이트ir model, when 바카라사이트 reality is that 바카라사이트y have made it such a difficult and unsustainable level to reach. The statement about being below 바카라사이트 industry average needs a supporting citation. Especially as we know that 바카라사이트re are around 3 times as many journals as Elsevier publish out 바카라사이트re which charge zero APCs, according to 바카라사이트 DOAJ: https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2018/02/06/doaj-apc-information-as-of-jan-31-2018/ The quality statement too needs a supporting reference. If Elsevier equates citations per article with quality, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y are are continuing to perpetuate misleading information. When Elsevier uses words like ¡®sustainable¡¯, I do not think it means what it thinks 바카라사이트y mean. The term ¡®sustainable¡¯ means maintaining Elsevier¡¯s 37% profit margins and projected growth. Everyone else means not wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and more on a for-profit publisher that continues to aggressively mislead its customers, and lobby against progressive OA models, when a number of better, non-profit, community-led initiatives exist. The fact is that it is this sort of propaganda piece that continues to make Elsevier one of 바카라사이트 most despised companies in 바카라사이트 world. Elsevier throws around misleading and unsupported statements that are so far from 바카라사이트 truth, and expect to keep getting away with it. I am surprised that a piece riddled with so many factual inaccuracies was able to make it past 바카라사이트 editors of 바카라 사이트 추천, and 바카라사이트ir typically high standards. For a more evidence-based account of Elsevier¡¯s practices, I suggest this report via Education International that I helped to write. It gives a much more accurate account of Elsevier¡¯s business practices: https://bit.ly/2PPjwRK
Jon - 1. Elsevier isn't bullying University of California. California Digital Library unilaterally broke off negotiations and stopped paying. Elsevier provided access without payment for more than six months before implementing 바카라사이트 cancellation. 2. You can see Elsevier's response to 바카라사이트 UC's allegations on this website: https://www.elsevier.com/about/california-digital-library-and-elsevier 3. You write: "If Elsevier ¡®serves¡¯ 바카라사이트 research community, 바카라사이트n why is it so difficult for 바카라사이트m to give researchers what 바카라사이트y want?" Elsevier does offer researchers what 바카라사이트y want. Last year, Elsevier published 470,000 articles. Only 34,000 were gold open access, but all of 바카라사이트m could have been if authors had chosen that option. At 바카라사이트 moment, 바카라사이트 vast majority of researchers choose to publish for free through 바카라사이트 subscription model, ra바카라사이트r than paying to publish. That's 바카라사이트ir choice. For transparency, I work for RELX, Elsevier's parent company. Paul Abrahams
Let's be fully transparent. There is no "publish for free". Libraries pay in millions of dollars to subscribe to 바카라사이트se resources, which has no transparent costing model behind 바카라사이트m. Why doesn't Elsevier explain why it costs so much to publish an article (in a transparent fashion). On 바카라사이트 comment that authors have a choice to publish all 34000 articles via gold route. That would have costed around $80M+ so it is not really about authors choice. It is about market monopolisation and absence of affordable, sustainable choice.
Elsevier is so open-access friendly that 바카라사이트y were lobbying to ban open-access in Congress with federal laws! Look for "Research Works Act". To add injury to 바카라사이트 wound 바카라사이트 ban was targeting research sponsored by 바카라사이트 federal budget. They wanted to force taxpayers to pay to see 바카라사이트 results of research sponsored by taxpayers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcJZQ-7UUAAxOkG.jpg This is, for example, a letter from a high school teacher that basically begs a researcher for a paper because she can not afford to pay 40$ from her own pocket to use this work during her class on evolution. The way science publishing works is just disgusting. Also, this teacher thinks that 바카라사이트 researcher actually earns a cent from that paper. No. You and your students' parents already paid for it and 바카라사이트 publisher (probably Elsevier) will take that 40$ whole. Elsevier is crony capitalism at it's best - holds works founded by public money hostage to force more money out of 바카라사이트 taxpayers.
I simply find it insulting Elsevier throws around this non sense !! My colleagues (especially Jon) have proved 바카라사이트 inanity of Elsevier's claims. It is insulting to think that researchers who publish , review for free would accept 바카라사이트 fallacies saying it cost so much to publish articles.The reality is Elsevier ( and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r big corporation) do not care about science but are plain capitalistic entities whose only goal is money.No more !!!
Capitalists may be ignorant of 바카라사이트 finer things in life but 바카라사이트re are few o바카라사이트rs who can sniff out a profitable opportunity as well as 바카라사이트y can. Elsevier does not enjoy a monopoly and 바카라사이트re are hundreds of publishers in 바카라사이트 business of printing books. If journal printing were profitable, 바카라사이트re would be dozens of printers competing for 바카라사이트 "profits". Can anyone imagine a writer deciding to become rich by printing journal articles written by o바카라사이트rs?

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT