To All Academics: Let’s Boycott Commercial Publishers!

By Stephan Manning and Keshav Krishnamurty.

In his new article “Putting the ‘Public’ Back into ‘Publication’”, Mike Valente uncovers the outrageous profit-making model of commercial publishers of academic journals. Publishing houses like Elsevier and Springer generate enormous profits without actually contributing anything to knowledge production. They neither produce content nor pay the ones who do. They do not even review papers, but instead delegate this task to voluntary academic editors and reviewers. Yet, publishers continue to charge $30 or more per paper download and $4,000 to $20,000 for annual journal subscriptions. Thanks to online distribution and reduced printing costs, publishers can turn 40% of their revenues into profit. Commercial publishing has not only hindered public access to academic knowledge, but has created high costs for university libraries and justified high student fees. So, why does nobody care to change this profit-making model, and what would it take to change it?

mmw5fw64-1329281095

Commercial journal publishing is not inevitable. Nonprofit journals have existed for a long time; they charge libraries roughly one tenth of commercial journals – with no difference in quality or prestige. In fact, a large proportion of the highest-impact journals are nonprofit or run directly by academic associations, such as the Academy of Management. So why do commercial journals exist at all? For once, those who read them – academics – do not pay for them since they get access for free through university library subscriptions and licenses. The latter are financed primarily by student fees and donations. Of course, academic papers can also be purchased online, but nobody does that, since academics do not need to and non-academics see no point in it. In other words: commercial publishers continue to make enormous profits because academics do not care, students do not know, and the public neither knows nor cares about the academic journal business. So, who can do anything about that, and what should be done?

Five years ago Internet activist Aaron Swartz tried to make a difference by illegally downloading and giving free access to Thousands of academic papers from the commercial distributor JSTOR using an MIT license. What followed was an over-the-top prosecution in the course of which Aaron took his life. It seems absurd that activism with such dire consequences was needed to raise awareness of this issue. But it is equally disturbing to see how little has changed since then – commercial publishers and distributors continue to prosper.

We argue that the only ones with the power to crush the commercial journal business are academics themselves, because publishers depend on them entirely. Without them, there would be no content, no editors, no reviewers, no readers. But do academics also depend on publishers? In fact they don’t. Imagine for a second, Elsevier, Springer and other publishers just disappeared. Nothing would change for academics. Editorial teams, whose work is voluntary anyway, could simply turn to virtual outlets, and hire cheap copy editors, page formatting experts and webmasters through elance.com to be able to post articles online. Maintaining a journal website would perhaps cost $1,000 annually. All of a sudden, libraries would not need to buy expensive subscriptions or licenses anymore. Academics, students and the public could be given free access to academic knowledge.

So why have academics and their associations not tried to do exactly that? Main reasons are inertia, lack of incentives and inability to adjust. Unfortunately, most publishers own the rights to their journals’ names. Journals (and their names) are part of a system of peer-reviewed publishing that gives academics credibility and prestige. Giving up on commercial journals just to shift to less costly nonprofit publishers may require building trust in new journal brands, which is tedious, even though this has happened occasionally. Also, the market of academic publishing is highly concentrated with a few publishers dominating the entire industry, which makes it difficult to get rid of them entirely. Plus, academic associations that publish their own journals have adopted commercial subscription practices which allows them to generate revenues beyond membership fees. Finally, recent attempts towards promoting alternative online journals have largely failed the ‘credibility test’ vs. established journals. The latter, in turn, have responded to the growing push for a publishing reform by ‘offering’ so-called ‘open access’ solutions, which would give anybody free online access to specific papers. Yet most authors are unwilling to pay the extra fee – the so-called ‘article processing charge’ – required to ‘buy’ their articles ‘out’ of the regular publishing process.

Facing this dilemma, a more radical solution is needed. Some have suggested that university libraries, as the main buyers of academic journals, need to form an alliance and refuse to renew subscriptions and licenses unless publishers lower their prices. Certainly, the watchful eye of deans and perhaps increasing student awareness about how their fees enter the pockets of publishers could support such efforts. However, such a resistance strategy might also work against the interest of academics (and students) who need access to latest journal issues. Instead, academic associations should form an alliance and threaten publishing houses to turn their lead journals into e-journals and move entire editorial teams unless publishers change their business models. However, hardly anybody will put pressure on academic associations to do so. Instead it needs to become their moral obligation to act – in face of library budget constraints, rising student fees, and an increasing interest of the public in engaged academics who are willing to share their knowledge with the rest of society. Some recent petitions to boycott publishers like Elsevier lead in this direction, but more coordinated action is needed. At the same time, guerrilla projects like Sci-Hub and LibGen have started to make Millions of academic papers freely accessible online.

To create a lasting effect, however, both academics and administrators need to acknowledge the legitimacy of alternative forms of publishing. Book publishing provides an existing precedent, with independent academic publishers, and the growing field of self-publishing that offers authors unprecedented control over their content. Major distributors like Amazon already give advice about how to self-publish. And to avoid the ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ effect – the self-publishing of poorly written and edited books – academics simply need to apply their excellent voluntary peer-review and editing standards and infrastructures that ensure high quality, no matter if an article is submitted to a journal with restricted access, or an independent outlet. One good example is ephemera, an independent peer-reviewed journal that provides content for free. We therefore urge the academic community to promote the legitimacy of nonprofit and independent forms of peer-reviewed publishing so that publishers can no longer restrict access to our own work while using us for free. Instead, we should create a new system, in the spirit of activist Aaron Swartz, that would help safeguard the knowledge interests of academics, students and citizens alike.

Further references:

Tweet your support to #puttingpublicbackintopublication (see Mike Valente’s blog)
Public Knowledge Project at Stanford University
Elsevier Boycott Petition ‘The Cost of Knowledge’
Resources for independent book publishing
Further resources related to academic journal publishing reform
Library Genesis
and Sci-Hub providing free access to academic papers

Picture taken from: Norrie, J. “Academics line up to boycott world’s biggest journal publisher” in The Conversation (Feb 14 2012)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “To All Academics: Let’s Boycott Commercial Publishers!

  1. “Giving up on commercial journals just to shift to less costly nonprofit publishers may require building trust in new journal brands”
    – I do agree with this part. When we are comfortable with something, we tend to stick with it instead of moving to something different.

    Aidnography’s comment
    “A third point I would like to raise is more general: Academics tend to overestimate how thirsty the world is for the knowledge of a journal article. ”
    – I do agree with their comment when it comes to academics overestimating.

    But I still believe that commercial publishers should not charge academics. Academics should take a stand. As they pay for the publishers, students might not even know that they are the ones being charged too.

  2. Here’s something that will continue the conversation: Why do we, as academics, put our time and effort for free, into reviewing and editing for these journals – which, because they are owned by large-scale publishing houses, can charge thousands of dollars for subscriptions.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546?cid=trend_right_a

    Its interesting to really think about Stephan’s claim. If we want to actually change anything, why do we spend so much effort into writing articles that very few people even read…?

    As for supporting academic organizations, which often publish our articles, To be fair – consider the Academy of Management. They put on the largest conference for management academics in the world – more than two thousand presentations over three days, plus a pre-conference and many special activities. When we go on the market, they are the largest source and platform for academic jobs, although primarily in the US. And publishing a journal includes the staff to edit, proofread, typeset, and arrange all the additional material – AoM now publishes six journals. Plus, they think they are creating value in other ways — social action; mid-year conferences; global interchanges. Whether or not we find that “worth” the cost of membership is our own calculation. Although I might not agree that the total $$ collected by all of us far outstrips the value they create, I’m committed to the organization. So, I (just) pay.

    The most interesting point in my earlier post was, we pay other professionals for their services, e.g. physicians, lawyers, consultants. But we academics do everything for free: Virtually all scholarly contributions to society at large are unpaid (and earn a huge profit for the publishers). Curious.

  3. I imagine that university libraries are a key source of pressure to reduce costs – they are the buyers and are facing budget cuts in many places. But are they organized into larger associations that can exert pressure? Don’t know. But they represent a more centralized force than academics, who have a hard time organizing anything! What we need is a group that would take the non-profit or collective model (Like Ephemera, a good example), and make the tools and templates readily available – a bit like wikipedia. But Ephemera is struggling to compete with mainstream journals – Impact factors and reputations take years to build. Will Sage and other journal publishers let go of their valuable branded journals? Not in this capitalist world we live in. They might move to a lower cost model, but they will charge as much as they can. And there is little cost competition among the journals, libraries have to stock all the well known ones.

  4. Pingback: Links 16/2/2016: FOSS Search Engine of Wikipedia, Street Fighter V on GNU/Linux | Techrights

  5. There are quite a few points that I disagree with and that I find way too simplistic-surprisingly naive really. A much better argument would be to ask hiring committees, tenure committees, promotion committees and funding agencies to re-consider commercial publishers when reviewing CVs and applications. In our current prestige economy the publication you publish in matters on your CV-regardless of how inaccessible the journal is for the rest of the world; which brings to my next point: Impact Factor, or more precisely the corporate entity Thomson-Reuters that owns the IF. It is very convenient to criticize publishers, but one of their main and almost exclusive features is that above-mentioned committees rely on the prestige of the IF. We could discuss the neoliberal, metric-driven academic industry for half an hour, but maybe we can find another spot for this ;)!
    A third point I would like to raise is more general: Academics tend to overestimate how thirsty the world is for the knowledge of a journal article. If we imagine a world where all the articles in the world were open access, we still would have tons of articles that nobody would read, cite and that die a sad death in the ‘to read’ folder on your desktop. I actually wrote about it on my blog some time ago (http://aidnography.blogspot.com/2015/11/critique-of-academic-publishing-open-access-debate.html).
    Anybody is welcome to boycott any corporate entity, regime etc. they like, but I would argue for a more pragmatic approach: Have the broader, powerful prestige economy in mind, push for open access on the institutional level and use blogs, pre-prints etc. to disseminate your research with the world.

    • Thanks very much for commenting! You have a very good point about Impact Factor metrics – and perhaps we could discuss the neoliberal, metric driven industry and what we consider relevant in CVs in a future post 🙂 . It’s definitely up our alley. Although most people may not be very thirsty for the kind of research we do – I can’t imagine that many people getting “drunk” off Organizational Theory! – there is no shortage of valuable academic research that might be difficult for people outside of the right channels to access, such as research on cancer and genetic diseases that could be useful to sufferers. From a normative perspective, since the public pays for our research, I think it is only fair that it has direct access to it whether or not our work is the kind that is in high public demand. Your pragmatic approach in this regard sounds quite interesting!

    • Yes I agree on the lack of interest of the public in academic papers. Point taken. However, the principle of free access remains an important question of legitimacy. Same with public legal documents – only because they are public does not mean that everybody will read them. In a way, the emphasis here is on availability, not ‘readability’ (or ‘demand’). That was the main point of Aaron Swartz’s activism. Btw, guerrilla projects like LibGen and Sci-Hub are now finishing what Swartz started. They have made 68% of all Elsevier articles accessible for free already.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s