Thomas I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is a systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the solution is to make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems such as RePEC being more user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing what is OA, instead of burying it among subscription-only contents.
It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that "it" only has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned individually and while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to rule. Kudos to the Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I hope they succeed in getting a better deal. Éric -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent: July-03-15 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott Danny Kingsley writes > Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a > complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access. I guess the Summer silly season is here. > As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of > Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that > are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up > their post. It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary, presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters. > If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the > next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier. This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch reviewers. > After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier > journals. Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not based on some boycott ideology. The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical argument. Recall the Public Library of Science. Before it became a publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the text from public view. By my impression it was completely ineffective. Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access publications. Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open access is achieved. In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a library-made problem. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
