On the Cost of Knowledge: Evaluating the Boycott against Elsevier

Heyman, Tom; Moors, Pieter; Storms, Gert

doi:10.3389/frma.2016.00007

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is then up to scientists to free themselves (and their papers) from the tyranny of academic publishers by refusing to perform free peer-reviews for them and by publishing open-access when possible. Obviously the success of such a boycott lays in a unified response from scientists across fields 3 . And there is Sci-Hub to remove the remaining barriers in the way of science.…”

Section: #Pay4reviews: Academic Publishers Should Pay Scientists For mentioning

confidence: 99%

#Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

Jaffé

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exploitation of scientists by traditional academic publishers is widespread, as they monopolize the right to distribute scientific papers, strip authors of their own article’s copyrights, and charge them if they wish to read papers from their peers. It is then up to scientists to free themselves (and their papers) from the tyranny of academic publishers by refusing to perform free peer-reviews for them and by publishing open-access when possible. Starved of peer-reviewers, academic publishers would have nothing to publish, while subscription fees are doomed to disappear in an age of open-science. This system would also create incentives to perform peer-review: #Pay4Reviews

show abstract

Section: #Pay4reviews: Academic Publishers Should Pay Scientists For mentioning

confidence: 99%

#Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

Jaffé

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Cost of Knowledge was a protest against Elsevier's business practices, specifically high subscription prices, the "big deal" business model, and the publisher's support for various legislative initiatives. (Gowers, 2012) In an evaluation by Heyman et al (2016) of the effect of that petition on the future publishing habits of the 16,000 that had signed the petition agreeing not to publish, a study of the signatories from Chemistry and Psychology (500 signatories each) demonstrated that 17% of the psychology authors that signed the petition then went on to publish with Elsevier in the four years following the initiation of the campaign. The study took into account factors that affect authors' decisions on where to publish, such as issues of author order.…”

Section: Subscription or Traditional Journal Publishing In Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, for Psychology, even of the 46% that had coauthors, 26% of signatories were first author and 26% were in the last author position. (Heyman, Moors, & Storms, 2016) It will be interesting to continue to watch how various actions by academics affect publishers (or whether they don't). It may seem that publishers are immune from this sort of action at this point, and they continue on without repercussions (except a temporary spate of negative publicity).…”

Section: Subscription or Traditional Journal Publishing In Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly Communication and Open Access in Psychology: Current Considerations for Researchers

Mullen¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly communication and open access practices in psychological science are rapidly evolving. However, most published works that focus on scholarly communication issues do not target the specific discipline, and instead take a more “one size fits all” approach. When it comes to scholarly communication, practices and traditions vary greatly across the disciplines. It is important to look at issues such as open access (of all types), reproducibility, research data management, citation metrics, the emergence of preprint options, the evolution of new peer review models, coauthorship conventions, and use of scholarly networking sites such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu from a disciplinary perspective. Important issues in scholarly publishing for psychology include uptake of authors’ use of open access megajournals, how open science is represented in psychology journals, challenges of interdisciplinarity, and how authors avail themselves of green and gold open access strategies. This overview presents a discipline-focused treatment of selected scholarly communication topics that will allow psychology researchers and others to get up to speed on this expansive topic. Further study into researcher behavior in terms of scholarly communication in psychology would create more understanding of existing culture as well as provide early career researchers with a more effective roadmap to the current landscape. As no other single work provides a study of scholarly communication and open access in psychology, this work aims to partially fill that niche.

show abstract

“…As of early December 2017, negotiations are still underway with the extension of contracts due to expire at the end of the month (Schiermeier 2017). An analysis of the Cost of Knowledge petition (Heyman et al 2016) describes the dilemma of individuals signing up to a boycott, and the personal and professional pressures which can counteract such commitments. The Project Deal consortium shows how many individuals and institutions-when working together-can begin to push back against corporations reaping the profits from academic labour.…”

Section: Journal Of Current Cultural Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Publishing and its Digital Binds: Beyond the Paywall towards Ethical Executions of Code

Swist

Magee

2018

Cult. Unbound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we explore various constraints and potentials of academic publishing in the digital age. Advancement of digital platforms and their expansive reach amplify the underlying tensions of institutional and scholarly change. A key affordance of these platforms is that of speed: rapidly distributing the outputs of a precaritised profession and responding to pressures to publish as well as the profit motive of publishers. On the one hand, these systems make possible alternative modes of contributory content and peer-production for supporting the commons. On the other, they turn all too readily into privatising devices for contracting labour and profit in the corporate sector and, within the academy, for accentuating subtle power effects. Drawing upon platform studies and integrating insights from political philosophy and property law, our article seeks to problematise neat binaries of possession and dispossession associated with the sector. We examine in particular how co-existing and emergent socio-technical circuits-what we term digital binds-modulate the political economy of academic publishing on a number of scales. These entangled binds constrain but also indicate mechanisms for opening up new possibilities. We introduce three ethical executions of code towards this end: dissuading, detouring, and disrupting. Together, these mechanisms show how mutually beneficial boundaries can be drawn for designing otherwise: by blocking dominant systems and bargaining for fairer practices; exploring sanctioned and unsanctioned systems which offer more diverse publishing pathways; and, disrupting systemic processes and profits towards more inclusive and equitable conditions.

show abstract

On the Cost of Knowledge: Evaluating the Boycott against Elsevier

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

#Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

#Pay4Reviews: Academic publishers should pay scientists for peer-review

Scholarly Communication and Open Access in Psychology: Current Considerations for Researchers

Academic Publishing and its Digital Binds: Beyond the Paywall towards Ethical Executions of Code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About