<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE : [cmath] Campaign against Elsevier</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dear Tomasz Kaczynski and colleagues,<BR>
<BR>
You wrote,<BR>
<BR>
> a fundamental discussion on public research and<BR>
> authors rights versus publisher's rights is due<BR>
<BR>
The International Mathematical Union (IMU) has a blog for that:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://blog.mathunion.org/journals/">http://blog.mathunion.org/journals/</A><BR>
<BR>
Certainly, we should continue discussing but<BR>
there is a need for concrete action.<BR>
<BR>
David Savitt wrote (http://thecostofknowledge.com):<BR>
<BR>
> Certainly one can debate whether Elsevier is the right specific target,<BR>
> but I do think that if one wants to build some sort of movement,<BR>
> it’s best to start out in a relatively specific way.<BR>
> Targeting a particular bad behavior in a broad way may leave so few alternatives<BR>
> as to be impractical for many individuals, and if individuals can’t make a pledge and stick to it<BR>
> then one isn’t going to get anywhere. You also have to ask, pragmatically,<BR>
> what’s going to get a large number of people to participate? A<BR>
> high-minded commitment to a broad principle takes much more effort than a boycott<BR>
> of a specific company.<BR>
<BR>
Best regards,<BR>
André<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-------- Message d'origine--------<BR>
De: cmath-bounces@cms.math.ca de la part de Tomasz Kaczynski<BR>
Date: ven. 27/01/2012 11:44<BR>
Ŕ: Nassif Ghoussoub; CMath E-Mail Distribution List<BR>
Cc: department@math.ubc.ca; Profs-Math<BR>
Objet : Re: [cmath] Campaign against Elsevier<BR>
<BR>
Dear Nassif, Dear colleagues,<BR>
<BR>
I am sympathetic with voices of deception with current publishing <BR>
practices but I don't know why this attack is explicitly on Elsevier, <BR>
while<BR>
<BR>
1. The problem is general and it concerns all leading scientific <BR>
publishers, with Elsevier ex aequo Springer. Please see this paper <BR>
which appeared in The Guardian online half an year ago:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist</A><BR>
<BR>
For example, in the blog one says about "bundles" of Elsevier: From <BR>
2010 on, our library has been pushed to purchase a bundle of All <BR>
Springer electronic books in Math, leaving not too much funds for <BR>
books from other publishers. Another example, Elsevier charges $ <BR>
31.40/paper, Springer $34.95.<BR>
<BR>
2. The article cited above presents objections which are more <BR>
fundamental in nature than charging high prices: it is about <BR>
monopolizing the knowledge acquired from public funds. But it occurred <BR>
to me that actually Elsevier is the Publisher who's attitude to <BR>
Author's Rights e.g. concerning the free on-line distribution of <BR>
author's own preprints seems to be the most flexible, see this new <BR>
reformed policy:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights">http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights</A><BR>
<BR>
In the view of this policy, the author may not only keep a preprint on <BR>
his web page (or in arxiv) but even update it by incorporating <BR>
suggestions from referees (who also are paid from public funds, not by <BR>
the Publisher) provided there is no involvement of the Publisher's <BR>
team in producing the preprint version. So, regardless of how much <BR>
Elsevier charges for their final version, whether or not the public <BR>
research is publically released, depends on US, THE AUTHORS, not only <BR>
on the Publisher.<BR>
<BR>
I do not find such transparent statements from other publishers, and I <BR>
think that many authors feel intimidated by journals' copyright <BR>
policies. How many authors can afford purchasing the Open Access <BR>
option? Those who do, are they the best authors or best-financed <BR>
authors? I see that many publications of scientific Societies and <BR>
Consortiums such as IEEE or, why search so far, our CMS, are also a <BR>
kind of "Sesame: show open" ;-)<BR>
<BR>
To recapitulate this, I believe that a fundamental discussion on <BR>
public research and authors rights versus publisher's rights is due <BR>
rather than blasting one selected publisher.<BR>
<BR>
Best regards,<BR>
Tomasz<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Tomasz Kaczynski<BR>
Departement de mathematiques<BR>
Universite de Sherbrooke<BR>
Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Quoting Nassif Ghoussoub <nassif@math.ubc.ca>:<BR>
<BR>
> Dear all,<BR>
><BR>
> This is to inform you about a campaign to boycott Elsevier launched <BR>
> by Timothy Gowers on his blog<BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/">http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/</A><BR>
><BR>
> You can participate if you wish by going to the webpage "Cost of knowledge"<BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://thecostofknowledge.com/">http://thecostofknowledge.com/</A><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Nassif Ghoussoub<BR>
> <A HREF="http://nghoussoub.com/">http://nghoussoub.com/</A><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>