I’ve been watching the growth of
The Cost Of Knowledge with
fascination since it launched last week. If you’re following the
kerfuffle around the
Research Works
Act, and the uncanny
similarities between Elsevier press releases and the phrasing of
Congressional responses to input on the Act, let me explain a little
bit.
Scientists are the labor on which the scientific publishing industry is
built. They do the science, they do the writing of papers, and they
decide where to submit their papers for publication. Then the publisher
turns right back around and asks other scientists to do more work: read
the submissions, review them for accuracy, review them for how important
the science is, and decide if the paper is worth publishing or not. Then
the publishers format the paper and sell it right back to the scientist
via punishingly high subscription costs.
With this labor system, traditional subscription-based publishers can
(unsurprisingly) clear profit margins that would make Bill Gates
jealous, upwards of 30%. They’ve
increased prices, fought open
access policies, and paid for
false-front
lobbying groups to maintain the status quo.
But there was a fundamental fault line in scientific publishing, one
those of us in the open science world have always watched, waiting for
the first earthquake to strike: the willingness of scientists to be the
volunteer labor in the equation of publication.
Seeing 2600 (and increasing as of 1 February 2012)
scientists state they won’t review,
and won’t publish, at Elsevier journals in response to the RWA, is that
earthquake. It’s a gorgeous example of nonviolent resistance.
But it’s not enough. Scientists who won’t publish or review with
Elsevier need to make a second commitment to make the same amout of
labor they used to give to the Dutch giant and give it to a true
Open Access publisher.
We cannot make the change we want through telling Elsevier “I Prefer
Not To” - we must make a separate commitment to devote time and sweat
to open journals.
Remember the parable of
Bartleby.
His passive nature did create change, but eventually he wound up too
passive to eat, and he died. There are limits to the power of saying you
won’t do the wrong thing - there are few limits when you commit to doing
the right thing as well.
And, because this was a way too thinky post, here’s a nice pop culture
reference to Bartleby.