Elsevier - my contribution to his fall [translation]
from the translator: In the light of the recently published Science Under Lock publication on Habré, I would like to give an insider look at the problem of accessibility of scientific publications of British mathematicians from the University of Cambridge, who writes on the Internet by the nickname gowers .
PS International titles of journals, as far as I know, do not have official translations, therefore the translation is given within the meaning of the original title.
The Netherlands Publishing Company Elsevier publishes many of the world's most famous mathematics magazines, including Advances in Mathematics, Comptes Rendus Mathematique, Discrete Mathematics ")," European Journal of Combinatorics "(" The European Journal of Combinatorics ")," History of Mathematics "(" Historia Mathematica ")," Journal of Algebra "(" Journal of Algebra ")," Journal of Approximation Theory "(" Journal of Approximation Theory ")," Journal of Combinatorics. Series A "(" Journal of Combinatorics Series A ")," Journal of Functional Analysis "(" Journal of Functional Analysis ")," Journal of Geometry and Physics "(" Journal of Geometry and Physics ")," Journal of Mathematical Analysis and applications "(" Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications ")," Journal on Number Theory "(" Journal of Number Theory ")," Topology "(" Topology ")," Topology and its applications "(" Topology and its Applications " ). For years, the company has been heavily criticized for its business practices. Let me briefly summarize the main points on which this criticism is based.
')
I could continue, but I’ll stop here.
It seems inexplicable why the situation continues to evolve in a similar way. In the end, mathematicians (like other scientists) have been complaining about this for a long time. Why don't they just refuse to publish in magazines published by Elsevier?
On the one hand, it is quite possible. A well-known (and not the only) case occurred when the entire editorial board of the magazine “Topology” quit, and soon the “Journal of Topology” was founded by another publisher. A summary of this story can be found here . But, unfortunately, it is rather a rare exception to the general rule. Thus, the question remains: why do we (the scientists-mathematicians, the translator's comment ) tolerate such unheard-of inconveniences, although it would seem it’s time to put an end to them?
One of the reasons lies in the fact that this requires organized action. Even if one library refuses to subscribe to the journals published by Elsevier, many others will find that they cannot refuse, and Elsevier will simply leave everything as it is. But if the libraries united into a certain club and discussed conditions together, using his own tactics against Elsevier - agree to our conditions or none of us subscribe to any of your journals - then Elsevir's profits (which are huge, by the way) would be in serious danger. However, it seems unlikely that such a coordinated action on the part of the libraries ever happened.
What about the joint actions of scientists? What if everyone who is part of the various editorial boards of journals published by Elzevir follows the example of the board of the Journal of Topology? Frankly, I do not have an answer to this: I can only assume that only a few of the members of these colleges are ready to go through this rather unpleasant and time-consuming process.
If the top-down approach doesn't work, what about the bottom-up approach? Why do we publish articles in magazines published by Elsevier? Let me answer this question with my own example. I have an article in the European Journal of Combinatorics, which I sent 20 years ago, even before I learned anything about the practices of Elsevier. Moreover, only a couple of days ago I learned that this magazine is being published by Elsevier (this is one of the reasons why I listed so many magazines at the beginning of this article. A more complete list can be found here .)
As soon as I learned about how Elzevier behaves, I made a conscious decision not to publish in the journals published by Elzevir, and I felt uncomfortable with any cooperation with this company. I would not immediately refuse, but if, for example, I would be offered to enter the editorial board of the journal published by Elsevier, and I would not be completely sure if I wanted to, the fact that the magazine is being published is Elzevir for me enough reason to make a final decision. (This incident really took place in my life. I acted somewhat cowardly and presented it as an additional, not the main reason, but at least I mentioned it). I am not (as far as I can know) in any editorial board of the journal published by Elzevir and has never been a member of the past.
Now, however, I decided that my silent struggle was not enough. I think another reason why we are cooperating with Elzevir is that it is simply inconvenient to refuse. If I am asked to write a review of an article published in a journal published by Elzevir, and I am obviously a suitable candidate for this, the refusal sounds like criticism of the editor of the magazine who asked me about it, despite the fact that this may be the person I I know.
The fact is that the moral reason for refusing to cooperate is not very obvious on a personal level. In fact, if we accept that the current situation with the bad practice of Elsevier is simply one of the unpleasant realities of life, which is unlikely to change, then the refusal to cooperate with them is wrong. However, I believe that this vicious practice will change over time - thanks to the Internet - so my argument in favor of doing my duty is less important than the interests of the mathematical community and the need to correct the situation as soon as possible.
Thus, I not only refuse to have something in common with Elzevir, but I declare it publicly. Without a doubt, I am not the first person to do this, but the more we will be, the more acceptable it will be in the community, and this is the main reason why I write these lines.
I thought it would be useful to organize a site where mathematicians who decided not to cooperate with Elsevier could publicly subscribe to this decision electronically. It might inspire other people to stand up for themselves if they saw how many other people are doing the same, and that public refusal is a good solution. Maybe such a site already exists, then I would like to know about it and add my name. If not, then, apparently, it is not so difficult to organize, but, unfortunately, I would not have coped with it. Can anyone help with this?
Returning to the question of morality, I do not think that there is any sense in accusing Elsevier of immoral behavior: this is a big business that wants to maximize its profits, like all others. I look at the problem in the most straightforward practical way. Naturally, they like it, as one would expect, but we have much more opportunities to assert our rights at the moment - for the simple reason that we do not really need their services. I do not mean that moral is irrelevant, but moral questions are between mathematicians and other mathematicians, and not between mathematicians and Elzevir. In short, if you publish in journals published by Elsevir, then it becomes easier for Elzevir to do something that damages the scientific institutions, so you do not publish them. (I think of the stories that were told to me when mathematicians at leading universities were cut off from the journals published by Elzevir. What I don’t know, but I would like to know, can mathematicians in developing countries afford access to journals Elsevier. If not, then this is another strong moral argument against publishing them.)
Even if many mathematicians refused to cooperate with Elsevier and the quality of their journals would drop dramatically, it’s not a fact that it would be enough for them to change their policies, as long as they can continue selling junk math journals with really important physics journals, chemistry and biology. However, this would be a serious gesture — perhaps serious enough for scientists in other sciences to join — and at least mathematics would be free of this problem.
In the end, I would like to note that Elsevier is far from the only publisher who is very controversial. However, of all, he is apparently the worst.
PS For non-UK readers: the title of my article is a reference to S. Milligan's book “Adolf Hitler — my contribution to his fall” (S. Milligan “Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall”).
PS International titles of journals, as far as I know, do not have official translations, therefore the translation is given within the meaning of the original title.
The Netherlands Publishing Company Elsevier publishes many of the world's most famous mathematics magazines, including Advances in Mathematics, Comptes Rendus Mathematique, Discrete Mathematics ")," European Journal of Combinatorics "(" The European Journal of Combinatorics ")," History of Mathematics "(" Historia Mathematica ")," Journal of Algebra "(" Journal of Algebra ")," Journal of Approximation Theory "(" Journal of Approximation Theory ")," Journal of Combinatorics. Series A "(" Journal of Combinatorics Series A ")," Journal of Functional Analysis "(" Journal of Functional Analysis ")," Journal of Geometry and Physics "(" Journal of Geometry and Physics ")," Journal of Mathematical Analysis and applications "(" Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications ")," Journal on Number Theory "(" Journal of Number Theory ")," Topology "(" Topology ")," Topology and its applications "(" Topology and its Applications " ). For years, the company has been heavily criticized for its business practices. Let me briefly summarize the main points on which this criticism is based.
- Publishing prices are prohibitively high - so much above average that it is simply surprising that the publisher has gotten away with this for so long.
- One of the ways in which they manage to achieve this is the so-called “bundle sale”, the essence of which is that libraries cannot choose which magazines to subscribe to, they can choose either a large selection (made by the publisher, and not library) or nothing at all. That is, if some of the journals in the “bundle” are irreplaceable for the library, then it has to subscribe at very high prices for a large number of journals in various sciences; however, many of these journals are not needed at all in the library (“The Journal of Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals” is a vivid example of a periodical, which many mathematicians consider to be simply insignificant, while libraries around the world are forced to subscribe to it). Considering the fact that the budget of libraries is often very limited, in practice this means that because of this they simply do not have enough money to subscribe to many magazines of other publishers, which are much more necessary. As a result, not only libraries suffer, but other publishers as well, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why Elsevier prefers this scheme.
- If libraries try to negotiate a better deal, Elsevier does not stand on ceremony in order to block access to all journals.
- Elsevier supports many measures, such as the Research Works Act , which prevent open access to work. Elsevier also supported the SOPA and PIPA bills and actively lobbied for them.
')
I could continue, but I’ll stop here.
It seems inexplicable why the situation continues to evolve in a similar way. In the end, mathematicians (like other scientists) have been complaining about this for a long time. Why don't they just refuse to publish in magazines published by Elsevier?
On the one hand, it is quite possible. A well-known (and not the only) case occurred when the entire editorial board of the magazine “Topology” quit, and soon the “Journal of Topology” was founded by another publisher. A summary of this story can be found here . But, unfortunately, it is rather a rare exception to the general rule. Thus, the question remains: why do we (the scientists-mathematicians, the translator's comment ) tolerate such unheard-of inconveniences, although it would seem it’s time to put an end to them?
One of the reasons lies in the fact that this requires organized action. Even if one library refuses to subscribe to the journals published by Elsevier, many others will find that they cannot refuse, and Elsevier will simply leave everything as it is. But if the libraries united into a certain club and discussed conditions together, using his own tactics against Elsevier - agree to our conditions or none of us subscribe to any of your journals - then Elsevir's profits (which are huge, by the way) would be in serious danger. However, it seems unlikely that such a coordinated action on the part of the libraries ever happened.
What about the joint actions of scientists? What if everyone who is part of the various editorial boards of journals published by Elzevir follows the example of the board of the Journal of Topology? Frankly, I do not have an answer to this: I can only assume that only a few of the members of these colleges are ready to go through this rather unpleasant and time-consuming process.
If the top-down approach doesn't work, what about the bottom-up approach? Why do we publish articles in magazines published by Elsevier? Let me answer this question with my own example. I have an article in the European Journal of Combinatorics, which I sent 20 years ago, even before I learned anything about the practices of Elsevier. Moreover, only a couple of days ago I learned that this magazine is being published by Elsevier (this is one of the reasons why I listed so many magazines at the beginning of this article. A more complete list can be found here .)
As soon as I learned about how Elzevier behaves, I made a conscious decision not to publish in the journals published by Elzevir, and I felt uncomfortable with any cooperation with this company. I would not immediately refuse, but if, for example, I would be offered to enter the editorial board of the journal published by Elsevier, and I would not be completely sure if I wanted to, the fact that the magazine is being published is Elzevir for me enough reason to make a final decision. (This incident really took place in my life. I acted somewhat cowardly and presented it as an additional, not the main reason, but at least I mentioned it). I am not (as far as I can know) in any editorial board of the journal published by Elzevir and has never been a member of the past.
Now, however, I decided that my silent struggle was not enough. I think another reason why we are cooperating with Elzevir is that it is simply inconvenient to refuse. If I am asked to write a review of an article published in a journal published by Elzevir, and I am obviously a suitable candidate for this, the refusal sounds like criticism of the editor of the magazine who asked me about it, despite the fact that this may be the person I I know.
The fact is that the moral reason for refusing to cooperate is not very obvious on a personal level. In fact, if we accept that the current situation with the bad practice of Elsevier is simply one of the unpleasant realities of life, which is unlikely to change, then the refusal to cooperate with them is wrong. However, I believe that this vicious practice will change over time - thanks to the Internet - so my argument in favor of doing my duty is less important than the interests of the mathematical community and the need to correct the situation as soon as possible.
Thus, I not only refuse to have something in common with Elzevir, but I declare it publicly. Without a doubt, I am not the first person to do this, but the more we will be, the more acceptable it will be in the community, and this is the main reason why I write these lines.
I thought it would be useful to organize a site where mathematicians who decided not to cooperate with Elsevier could publicly subscribe to this decision electronically. It might inspire other people to stand up for themselves if they saw how many other people are doing the same, and that public refusal is a good solution. Maybe such a site already exists, then I would like to know about it and add my name. If not, then, apparently, it is not so difficult to organize, but, unfortunately, I would not have coped with it. Can anyone help with this?
Returning to the question of morality, I do not think that there is any sense in accusing Elsevier of immoral behavior: this is a big business that wants to maximize its profits, like all others. I look at the problem in the most straightforward practical way. Naturally, they like it, as one would expect, but we have much more opportunities to assert our rights at the moment - for the simple reason that we do not really need their services. I do not mean that moral is irrelevant, but moral questions are between mathematicians and other mathematicians, and not between mathematicians and Elzevir. In short, if you publish in journals published by Elsevir, then it becomes easier for Elzevir to do something that damages the scientific institutions, so you do not publish them. (I think of the stories that were told to me when mathematicians at leading universities were cut off from the journals published by Elzevir. What I don’t know, but I would like to know, can mathematicians in developing countries afford access to journals Elsevier. If not, then this is another strong moral argument against publishing them.)
Even if many mathematicians refused to cooperate with Elsevier and the quality of their journals would drop dramatically, it’s not a fact that it would be enough for them to change their policies, as long as they can continue selling junk math journals with really important physics journals, chemistry and biology. However, this would be a serious gesture — perhaps serious enough for scientists in other sciences to join — and at least mathematics would be free of this problem.
In the end, I would like to note that Elsevier is far from the only publisher who is very controversial. However, of all, he is apparently the worst.
PS For non-UK readers: the title of my article is a reference to S. Milligan's book “Adolf Hitler — my contribution to his fall” (S. Milligan “Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall”).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/190024/
All Articles