Pull quote: “So the big question for governments and funders as they consider how best to support the transition to public access is why some traditional publications cost so much (and would pass those alleged costs on to taxpayers) while Gold OA journals and Green self-archiving seem to be more cost-effective alternatives. A lot of additional transparency would be required before recommendations such as those in the Finch report could be taken seriously.”

Pull quote: “We should not allow FUD (fear, uncertainty & doubt), which is often spread by institutions that are trying to preserve the problem to which they see themselves as the solution (to paraphrase Clay Shirky), to narrow our vision of a sustainable system of scholarly publishing. The problem we should be addressing is predatory publications, OA and subscription-based, and publishing ethics across the board.”

Pull quote: “Mathematicians have developed a very different approach to disseminating their own work, and accessing the work of their colleagues, from those that have developed in literature or anthropology. If the approach to publication contracts is to be made more rational and more attuned to the specific contexts that contracts are supposed to address, the disciplinary groups need to lead the way. We could make a lot of progress, I hope, if major scholarly societies drafted model publication agreements and offered them to their members to use.”

Pull quote: “In summary, you ask the journal to change its publication agreement to be SCDA-compliant and its price to have RPI less than 2. That’s specific, pragmatic, and actionable. If the journal won’t comply, you at least know where they stand. If you don’t like the answers you’re getting, you can work to find a new publisher willing to play ball, or at least, don’t lend your free labor to the current one.”

Pull quote: “The place to begin is with the recognition that neither libraries nor policy makers have an obligation to preserve a particular business model just because it has existed for a while, if it is not able to support itself in the face of rapid technological change. To say that scholarship will dry up if some publishers go out of business is simply not true; scholarship will continue and it will find new ways, and likely more efficient ones, to reach those who want or need to read and use it. This is already happening, which is why the publishers are so frightened in the first place.”

Pull quote: “The most astonishing thing about this is not so much that it goes on, but that people have put up with it for so long. Talk to university librarians about extortionist journal subscriptions and mostly all you will get is a pained shrug. The librarians know it’s a racket, but they feel powerless to act because if they refused to pay the monopoly rents then their academics – who, after all, are under the cosh of publish-or-perish mandates – would react furiously (and vituperatively).”

Pull quote: “In a frank open letter to the Harvard faculty, the council warns that the library faces a subscription crisis ‘exacerbated by efforts of certain publishers’ to bundle journals into high-priced packages. The letter does not name those publishers but says that Harvard now pays almost $3.75-million a year for their journals. ‘Continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable,’ the council says.”

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: “We’re looking at database adds/drops right now, and just for fun I thought I’d see how many of the publishers on Beall’s current list of predatory publishers are in EBSCO’s Academic Search Complete. Turns out it has 175 journals from 14 of the publishers on that list.”

Pull quote: “Are they sending out mass emails asking for editors and submissions? Often a sign of a scammer (though, it must be said, a couple of legitimate OA publishers have done this; they shouldn’t, and Hindawi at least has ceased the practice). Is the subject matter of the journal(s) advertised in the email appropriate to the recipient? If not, assume a scammer.”

Pull quote: “Boycotts and start-ups can fail. Whether you call it an Academic Spring or something else, it looks to me like we’ve reached the point where it won’t ultimately matter if some of them do fail. You can lock up content, but you can’t close up a scholarly culture that’s more and more interested in openness. That culture won’t be satisfied with just being told that copyright is good and piracy is bad. Publishers, how will you adapt?”

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.”