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.