Pull quote: “Calgary’s memo—the Loon repeats, she has no insider information!—may have been a conscious, intentional poke at the hornet’s nest. If so, the Loon lauds it and hopes that more faculty, more librarians, and more campus IT units will be transparent about these takedown notices.”

Pull quote: “I cannot say the same thing for Elsevier. As most academics and many knowledge activists know, Elsevier has engaged in some pretty evil maneuvers. Elsevier published fake journals until it got caught. Its parent company was involved in the arms trade until it got caught. Elsevier played an unrepentant and significant role in advancing SOPA/PIPA/RWA and continues to lobby on issues that undermine scholarship. Elsevier currently actively screws over academic libraries and scholars through its bundling practices. There is no sign that the future of Elsevier is pro-researchers. There is zero indicator that Mendeley’s acquisition is anything other an attempt to placate the academics who are refusing to do free labor for Elsevier (editorial boards, reviewers, academics). There’s no attempt at penance, no apology, not even a promise of a future direction. Just an acquisition of a beloved company as though that makes up for all of the ways in which Elsevier has in the past _and continues to_ screw over scholars.”

Pull quote: “Elsevier will grab behavior data while the grabbing’s good, analyze it, make business decisions from it, and then drop all pretense of caring. They will let Mendeley fade, its loyal userbase straggling away, its dedicated developers moving on (within Elsevier or outside it).”

Pull quote: “Reed Elsevier is the latest company to drop out of a conservative national advocacy group in the United States that has been a lightning rod for gun laws. The Anglo-Dutch professional information service provider said on Thursday it resigned its board seat and dropped its membership of the American Legislative Council (ALEC).”

Pull quote: “Promote a Wiser Tenure and Promotion System. A common refrain among scholars is that they cannot alter their publication activities for fear that their tenure and promotion status will be negatively affected. Established journals often have higher citation counts and impact factors than newer alternatives. If you wish to create change within the scholarly publishing world but share these concerns for your professional advancement, speak with your department chair or college dean. If possible, involve your university librarian, who is likely to be an expert on cholarly communication issues. Improving the means and rewards of scientific dissemination is a goal that university administrations can andshould support.”

Pull quote: “Before the article appears, authors and reviewers will be notified of the publication of the review report and the originally submitted manuscript alongside the article. Reviewers can choose whether or not their name will be revealed, thus avoiding the pitfalls mentioned in The Ups and Downs of Peer Review and Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial, in which reviewers are reluctant to sign reviews, especially negative ones.”

Pull quote: “To publish in the reputable open-access journal PLoS ONE costs a publication fee of $1,350. Other open-access journals average a bit less, around $906. To publish in an Elsevier journal, on the other hand, appears to cost some $10,500. In 2011, 78 percent of Elsevier’s total revenue, or £1,605 million, was contributed by journal subscriptions. In the same year, Elsevier published 240,000 articles, making the average cost per article some £6,689, or about $10,500 US. So to publish behind a paywall with Elsevier—and make your work available to only some other researchers and no members of the public—costs nearly eight times more than publishing openly with PLoS. It’s apparent that we are not getting value for money from the traditional academic publishers.”

Pull quote: “Elsevier, because they demand control, have set themselves up as the bottleneck. This is really the key point, because the subscription business model implies an imperative to extract income from all possible uses of the content it sets up a need for control of access for differential uses. This means in turn that each different use, and especially each new use, has to be individually negotiated, usually by humans, apparently about six of them. This will fail because it cannot scale in the same way that the demand will.”

Pull quote: “What is the underlying problem? Simply that the research community can no longer afford to pay the costs of publishing its research in the traditional manner. While OA may change the way in which research papers are distributed (whether by means of publishing in a subscription journal and then self-archiving a copy on the Web, or by paying to publish in an OA journal), it does not change the fundamental publishing model, including the utilisation of the costly process of pre-publication peer review. This suggests that even if there is no evidence that mandates are causing mass cancellation today, cancellations seem inevitable in the long term if nothing changes. However, these cancellations would likely not be a consequence of self-archiving, but of the mismatch between falling university budgets and the rising number of papers researchers want to publish. The latter figure is growing at around 6% to 7% per annum, and shows no signs of falling off.”

Pull quote: “Will this allow Elsevier to regain face with boycotters? The Loon rather doubts it. It might have done once, but because The Cost of Knowledge has three parts to its manifesto, boycotters have been introduced to more about Elsevier than just its shady dealings with legislators. Boycotters will see this move for what it is: a sop to the wolves.”

Pull quote: “Recognize this crisis as a reading-ecology problem and a fight for the right to read, not just a public-library problem. It doesn’t matter that this has primarily been about Overdrive, whose customer base is overwhelmingly public libraries (though Overdrive has higher-ed customers, including Yale, Pitt, and my tiny library).  We’re all part of the reading ecology.”

"On Tuesday, February 28, at 12:00 PM in Columbia University’s Faculty House Presidential Rooms 2 & 3, join us for “Protests, Petitions and Publishing: Widening Access to Research in 2012” to discuss how Occupy Wall Street, the Research Works Act (RWA), the boycott of Elsevier journals by a growing number of academics, and other recent developments are informing the debate over access to research and scholarship. The event is free and open to the public."

Pull quote: “In the internet age, Elsevier is doing an unbelievably shitty job of accomplishing its ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE: to distribute our work as broadly as possible See now why we, as customers, are unhappy? You’re distributing our work to a really small audience, and you’re making even that access irritating and painful. Don’t patronize us by telling us how you are ‘committed to universal access’. If you were genuinely committed to universal access, you’d make things universally accessible.”

Pull quote: “All of this leads me to wonder why on earth librarians continue to perpetuate the very system that we have been scolding scholars about for years. Many of our scholarly journals are published by the very corporations that supported the Research Works Act and which will continue to do what they can to maximize profits, which means making research in librarianship unavailable to many. Either we believe in open access, or we’re okay with the enclosure of knowledge. To preach open access without practicing it is baffling to me.”