Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

sparcopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#141

Post by nicwilson »

gumby wrote: post #110
hyeonwho4 wrote: post #25

The article mentioned that MIT saved 80%, and that they are paying $300,000 to purchase on a per article basis. So their previous contract with Elsevier was $1.5M annually. Elsevier's net income is £2.02 billion (2022)(Wikipedia). So the loss to Elsevier from MIT is about 0.04% of net income. Which makes sense: MIT is one of around 2000 universities worldwide. I hope this catches on elsewhere, too.

However there is also the loss of prestige for Elsevier. MIT is one the the preeminent universities in the world, perhaps the preeminent one.* The loss of MIT gives permission to other institutions who may be more concerned about reputation to do the same (they don’t want to generate whispers of “did they do this because they are having money troubles?”). It may also cause authors to submit other prestigious journals…

* Brownian motion. "browning motion" sounds like a euphamism for something else...

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#142

Post by mrandish »

mullingitover wrote: post #78

I wonder how far California could go on its own in destroying the journal cartels. They really are a parasitic racket, and I don't think the average voter understand how bad it really is. I feel like one basic ballot measure to the effect of "All state funded research shall be released to the public domain, and all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void" might be enough to knock over the first domino, h…

> "...all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void"

I don't think this second part you suggest is something the state can just unilaterally do if there's an existing valid contract and the other party doesn't agree. You could mandate that no contracts may be renewed and all contracts should be terminated as soon as the terms permit.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#143

Post by lelanthran »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #122
rtpg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curation is, theoretically, a value-add that doesn't magically disappear with the internet. "This paper is not utter garbage" is a nice signal, if it's true.

Anybody can curate. Curating a work doesn't require an exclusive copyright to publish that work. Michelin curates restaurants without charging their guests for admission. You can even start a subscription newsletter titled "rtpg's best of Arxiv", containing curated links to a shortlist of the highest quality research you can find. It could become very prestigious for researchers to be mentioned in your newsletter, an…

> You can even start a subscription newsletter titled "rtpg's best of Arxiv", containing curated links to a shortlist of the highest quality research you can find.

That's something worth signing up for.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#144

Post by elashri »

vk5tu wrote: post #140
mmooss wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect on experienced negotiators is different: Portraying it as a principle, a policy ('our policy is ...'), an emotional issue, etc. are all just window dressings for what they want, and everyone tries to portray their wants to be as non-negotiable as possible in order to drive up the price they can demand. One basic tactic is to act angry about your want; some politicians love to do this one - it's a new outra…

Then this is to misunderstand the customer. Administration in universities is a service to the teaching and research faculties (or departments, names vary). It's these faculties which bring in the money, which produce the results. As a result, universities rarely make decisions like corporations, where the CEO decides and everyone in the organisation toes the line. A policy like this is made by consultation with stak…

Universities usually get 40-60% of any grant money by researchers as overhead fees. This is usually negotiable but it is not like you have much to barging against administration as individual researcher/group unless you are one of the top in your field or a nobel prize candidate.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#145

Post by lelanthran »

j_maffe wrote: post #94
pdonis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any articles on PLOS that I can't find on arxiv.org?

It's not about having access to more articles, it's about the guarantee of peer-review of whatever you read on PLOS. On Arxiv you could be reading the ramblings of a random person on the internet with zero relevance to the real world.

> On Arxiv you could be reading the ramblings of a random person on the internet with zero relevance to the real world.

The current model for traditional publishing vets each paper that is published; arxive vets each author[1] once, and then their papers can be published.

So, sure, you could be reading the ramblings of a random person, but it is quite unlikely.

I think what is more valuable is looking at the citations to the work you are reading; unless you are reading something very very new, if it is valuable at all it would be cited.

[1] When I last looked at publishing (maybe a decade ago?), arxive was vetting authors, not individual papers.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#146

Post by lelanthran »

treyd wrote: post #44
stackedinserter wrote: post #7

US universities could create enough pressure on Elsevier to make them seriously reconsider their practices.

Can universities just do a buy-out of Elsevier and wind it down? Surely they really have the upper hand here.

There is only one solution to abusive monopolies: government intervention.

In this case, government funds can come with a contract that states all published results of that research must, after publication, be available for free.

This effectively means no changes to the current contracts Elsevier has with authors and with readers; all that happens is that government law trumps private contracts, so the universities/authors are free to distribute copies after publication.

Right now, the contracts forbid that.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#147

Post by maeil »

mmooss wrote: post #54
mlhpdx wrote: post #19

> MIT presented its principles to the publisher’s representatives as the basis for new contract negotiations. This is an incredibly important and powerful strategy, as a customer or a vendor. When everything is negotiable, trouble follows. The instant gratification of a "win" doesn't help move an organization forward. Having and sticking to principles does, with practical benefits. Trust grows and culture improves. C…

The effect on experienced negotiators is different: Portraying it as a principle, a policy ('our policy is ...'), an emotional issue, etc. are all just window dressings for what they want, and everyone tries to portray their wants to be as non-negotiable as possible in order to drive up the price they can demand. One basic tactic is to act angry about your want; some politicians love to do this one - it's a new outra…

On the face of it, this sounds like a modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money".

Which is probably correct in 95% of modern business transactions. But surely a skilled negotiator should be able to tell when they're dealing with a party for whom this assumption does not hold. That's one of the main things that being a skilled negotiator is about; the ability to adapt to this particular counterparty in this particular negotiation, instead of adhering to blanket rules.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#148

Post by dash2 »

mullingitover wrote: post #78

I wonder how far California could go on its own in destroying the journal cartels. They really are a parasitic racket, and I don't think the average voter understand how bad it really is. I feel like one basic ballot measure to the effect of "All state funded research shall be released to the public domain, and all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void" might be enough to knock over the first domino, h…

I think the UK has some fairly tough terms along those lines. Google "green open access".

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#149

Post by kkfx »

Since journals "review" are know to be broken, my curiosity is simply why not ALL universities talk to each others to suddenly ALL cancel ALL their subscriptions offering a federated hosting services and open peer-review process.

Ahja, companies interested in "tailored science to their business needs" might suspend their fund maybe?

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#150

Post by ClumsyPilot »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #48
fabian2k wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't. Not unless you want to sabotage your own career. There is a limited set of journals for a specific area of science, and you need to publish in the most reputable journal possible. There is only a very limited choice here in most cases.

So you're confirming that somehow the best publishers somehow manage to provide something of value. The people judging your career are the ones you're complaining about and somehow they're choosing to respect a few publishers. Instead of just imagining that Elsevier is somehow bad, you might ask yourself why these committees respect their journals so much. What are they doing that's right?

> publishers somehow manage to provide something of value

So do the Mexican drug cartels. does that mean they are good? Does that mean they are ‘free market’

Post reply on HN