Elsevier Needs My Help: The X ... No, Non Commandments, Only Questions

Elsevier is the top dog publishing platform of RELX, a highly profitable information company. Their employment concern model is quite unique: Earth pays for most of the work, it pays for the publication, too it pays for getting access to the publication. And from time-to-time Elsevier asks its entirely customers – too slaves (scientists) – on their see how to brand to a greater extent than money.

For reasons I had trivial command over, I am co-author of quite a bunch of papers published inwards Elsevier journals. When you lot had the pleasance to set out alongside Elsevier inwards the final fifteen years, you lot know that it is non the to a greater extent than oftentimes than non hapless writer handling, the inexpensive too mediocre proof-setting, the over-expensive, minimum-quality handouts (yes, yoke of years back, you'd however guild them, to ship your newspaper around physically), or the non-enforced guidelines regarding unremarkably accepted measures of goodness scientific do (e.g. documenting basic information integral to purported, published results) that makes you lot set out alongside Elsevier.

But they number some of import journals specialised inwards your field. For instance, for palaeobotanists in that location were essentially entirely 2 well-merited, specialised international journals: Elsevier's Review of Palaeobotany too Palynology (Rev Pal Pal) too U Chicago Press' International Journal of Plant Science (IJPS). The latter is U.S.-based, too turned out to live a no-go for our papers. We published i newspaper inwards IJPS (Denk & Grimm 2009a), but the resistance was fierce. So violent that the editor apologised to us for i of the (anonymous, naturally) peer reports yesteryear proverb that he was non aware peers tin dismiss live hence harsh inwards the land of palaeobotany (palaeozoologists are plainly much nicer to each other, or not, reckon comment(s) yesteryear Fossilist to the article; I allowed me a personal comment, too). As consequence, nosotros ended upwards alongside Elsevier's Rev Pal Pal, too nosotros published some quite unique papers there. For instance, a similarity- too network-backed evolutionary history of the beech trees (living too dead; Denk & Grimm 2009b) too our critiques of information used for too do of the so-called "Coexistence Approach", a pseudo-quantitative, not-really mutual climate make technique to reconstruct yesteryear climates using fossil flora taxon lists (Grimm & Denk 2012; Grimm et al. 2016). On all occassions, nosotros pass a lot of fourth dimension correcting errors introduced yesteryear the professional person proof-readers hired yesteryear Elsevier, too I could hitting myself for non having made a photograph of how the 2009 handouts, the final nosotros e'er ordered, looked like. To salve money, Elsevier printed (prints?) them on much thinner newspaper than inwards the erstwhile days, too pressed them into boxes that effectively were non big enough. So one-half of what was ordered too paid extra (naturally), was already spoiled when it arrived.

The 10 Magic Questions

Open scientific discipline is long overdue, later all most (fundamental) scientic enquiry (the existent one) is funded yesteryear Earth hand. Open access publishing is crucial, but why do you lot receive got to pay 3300$ (for "hybrid opened upwards access" inwards Rev Pal Pal), when it's done yesteryear Elsevier, too but 1000$ when done yesteryear e.g. PeerJ for sum opened upwards access? Here's a link to a PDF alongside Elsevier's sum pricelist ("article processing charges" alongside "fees [that] make betwixt c$150 too c$5000 U.S.A. Dollars depending on the journal")
Open sharing of enquiry information should live standard. It is not, too for sure non inwards the instance of the Elsevier journals I came inwards comport upon with. Quite the opposite. Aside that, no high-profit publisher should live able to growth its high turn a profit margin yesteryear sharing information financed yesteryear the public. Instead, our scientific discipline foundations too institutions could supply the infrastructure or hire/support somebody already providing such services for a much lower cost (e.g. datadryad, figshare)
Regarding involving the full general world inwards scientific too research ... I similar the notion, but when you've read science-related (sort-of) tweets of Trumpelchen (@realDonaldTrump), you lot grow hesitant that this is an alternative anymore.

Really? You desire to know your prime number workers' (scientists who fill upwards your journals, staff your editorial boards for no pay, too check, too fifty-fifty receive got to proof-read what you lot publish) see on which machine to use? Why don't you lot but analyse your access data? Even I tin dismiss reckon how many people accessed this spider web log using Android-, MS-, Mac-OS or Linux.

That's a enquiry non hence slow to answer. Landmark papers sound good, new ("important" ?!) protocols/methods are essential to scientific advancement. But who decides what is a "landmark" or "important". Maybe it's a play a trick on question, the natural alternative would live "all of this, of course".

Another enquiry that makes me think: does Elsevier know what it is doing? Maybe some other play a trick on question: All this of course, when you lot genuinely belief inwards getting the best out of information (and sharing data).

Finally, nosotros come upwards to a enquiry Elsevier is really interested in. Such equally do you lot know too utilization its products? Clicking on things (links) is a big employment concern these days.

Boring, side yesteryear side question.

Counter-question: Are you lot aware, Elsevier, that at to the lowest degree some of your journals don't (or reluctantly) follow your policies on open science, ethics, and research data? And that you lot don't supply them alongside the necessary infrastructure? For instance, you lot cannot document exceptional information sets/results yesteryear but uploading a PDF, spread-sheet or word-file equally supplementary information, you lot demand the flexibility too functionality that e.g. datadryad, figshare or PeerJ provide. I'd would receive got loved to follow your policies, but alas, I had to shop too percentage my information on my personal homepage (www.palaeogrimm.org/data), because I couldn't shop it alongside you.

Another client enquiry for increasing profit. It's overdue, considering how little you lot earned final year. The halt may live near, or not (an interesting The Guardian long read from June final year).

This is really a really goodness question. I would receive got liked to communicate alongside my peers, inwards item those non convinced yesteryear what nosotros showed, on a direct, eye-to-eye basis. Engaging inwards an opened upwards struggle to eliminate misunderstandings too commutation arguments. But that volition stay an utopic dream. Meanwhile, you lot tin dismiss brand the peer review procedure transparent, hence that arguments exchanged during review are non lost, too the many goodness peers too careful editors learn credit for their oftentimes excellent piece of work (see e.g. PeerJ, journals yesteryear Copernicus Publishers, too fifty-fifty Springer-Nature's The EMBL Journal) and tin dismiss live distinguished from the non few bad apples, currently comfortably hiding behind the Impermeable Fog shrouding the Forest of Reviews.
Interestingly, this is pre-made alternative here. Probably, because it'd live but something goodness for scientific discipline (Elsevier calls us researchers "stakeholders"), but non for RELX shareholders. Scientific meetings, online communication platforms, LinkedIn, Mendeley, and social media generate profits. Twitter's too Facebook's currency are link clicks. And every calendar week or two, I (still) learn one-two invitations to conferences organised yesteryear companies (not RELX-Elsevier or similar established scientific discipline publishers) behind known predatory publishers at exotic locations.

Yeah, you lot would similar to know, hence you lot tin dismiss corner the marketplace position fifty-fifty more. Not going to tell you.


And but inwards instance the survey people missed something important, the final enquiry (#10) is an opened upwards one.

I really much similar the thought of "resource centres". In fact in that location volition live a ship service inwards 2 weeks on Genealogical World of Networks on why nosotros desire to percentage our information too results, including phylogenetic networks (see also this 2013 post). But I wouldn't trust such an of import project to a society similar RELX' Elsevier that (still) restricts fifty-fifty the access to long-published, telephone commutation enquiry papers.

For instance, the master copy article introducing the BLAST search inwards 1990, nearly 4 decades ago, to honor similar sequences inwards cistron banks. Something in all probability every molecular geneticist has used (and however uses), too an article cited in all probability to a greater extent than oftentimes than it really has been read (it's also inwards my literatude database, flagged equally "nie gelesen", i.e. never read).

Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215:403-410.

It's also constituent of the basic didactics of hereafter bioinformaticians too molecular systematicists.

The master copy BLAST newspaper is PAYWALLED? Somebody tell me I'm non seeing this right. It's from 1990. How are nosotros supposed to learn bioinformatics if nosotros can't freely learn historic papers? #kscbioinformatics #openscience #OpenPed pic.twitter.com/E6nGkdQ6Yn

— Loren Launen (@LorenLaunen) 4. Februar 2018

You tin dismiss honor the newspaper on Elsevier's/RELX' Science Direct service.

To read it, give it to your students, you lot receive got to purchase it unless your university/institution library pays already for the access to the package including the Journal of Molecular Biology. No idea, what it costs, individually. When you lot press "Purchase", you lot outset receive got to log-in. Equally fun is to "Check for this article elsewhere" too reckon where the push clitoris on the linked page leads you lot to. Surprise, surprise...


Hiring the wolf (and quite a humongous one) for herding the sheep may non live the best alternative when it comes to a frail but vital flock, i.e. opened upwards scientific discipline too data.


A few links

• A 2012 ship service yesteryear Richard Poynder on Elsevier's pretty-last-minute retreat from supporting the Research Works Act that was designed to revoke the NIH's policy on gratuitous access. Includes links explaining dissimilar sorts of opened upwards access models.
• A The Guardian long read too podcast on RELX too others unique employment concern model. You build a house, you lot staff the workforce, you lot do the finishing, too hence you lot purchase it from the a real-estate society such equally the Trump Organization.
• The Guardian has, yesteryear the way, an interesting collection on Peer Review articles
• Homepage of the latterly fledged Coalition of Responsible Sharing, Elsevier's response to us researchers freely sharing our results; for those who chatter into the World using the cute trivial bluish birdie brand goodness utilization of @CFRSharing 
• RELX' information for investors (results 2017); reckon also the stock marketplace position evolution (select to exhibit the final 10 years). Quite impressive. And really impressive thinking that a goodness bargain of this is but due to a steady catamenia of tax-payers coin pouring in, cheers to us scientists. We really did a goodness project here!
• For German-capable: Aufgebauscht, bis es falsch wird. Interview of the Spiegel with a nobel laureate close Nature and Science. Both are non Elsevier products, but the same problems apply to Elsevier high-fly too mid-tier outlets equally well. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 overnice instance of the departure betwixt policies (as mentioned inwards Elsevier's questionaire) too reality.

References (the papers, I sneaked into the introduction of this post, I'm however pretty proud of them, too consider them worth sharing)
Denk T, Grimm GW. 2009a. Significance of pollen characteristics for infrageneric classification too phylogeny inwards Quercus (Fagaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 170:926–940.
Denk T, Grimm GW. 2009b. The biogeographic history of beech trees. Review of Palaeobotany too Palynology 158:83–100.
Grimm GW, Denk T. 2012. Reliability too resolution of the coexistence approach — Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 revalidation using modern-day data. Review of Palaeobotany too Palynology 172:33–47.
Grimm GW, Bouchal JM, Denk T, Potts AJ. 2016. Fables too foibles: a critical analysis of the Palaeoflora database too the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Review of Palaeobotany too Palynology 233:216–235.