I was recently approached by an editor of a well-known academic journal—published by Elsevier—asking me to review a submitted
manuscript.
Although I have occasionally published in their
journals, reviewed for them, and even participated in conferences
organized by them, a recent flow of negative press regarding Elsevier's
actions caused me to decline carrying out any free work for them.
Specifically, I cited the following articles published by the Guardian:
For links to discussion on the topic elsewhere, see the end of this
post.
Clearly, I'm by far not the only one to have refused to work for
Elsevier recently. In fact, already 1441 researchers have signed a
pledge at The Cost of
Knowledge refusing to publish in, refereeing for, and/or doing
editorial work for Elsevier. There is also a pledge called Research Without
Walls—at the moment signed by 432 researches—stating
that
the signatories
"...will assist in the peer review process (as a
reviewer,
board/committee member, chair, editor, etc.) only for conferences,
journals, and other publication venues that make all accepted
publications available to the public for free via the web."
Apparently Elsevier is taking this movement relatively seriously
since I received a response signed by Rob van Daalen. To
provide their view on the topic I quote his reply below in full:
Dear Dr. Kotakoski,
I have been informed that you rejected to review for [an
Elsevier journal], which is a very unfortunate. As publisher of the journal I
would like to add a shade of meaning to the articles published by the
Guardian on which you have based your decision.
1) From 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of
sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical
clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper
disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it
took place. This was an isolated practice from a past period in time and
it does not reflect the way we operate today. The individuals involved
in the project have long since left the company. Our CEO has affirmed
our business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the
proper use of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does
not happen again.
We will continue to partner with all scientists and clinical
investigators, including those in the pharmaceutical industry, to help
communicate the findings of high-quality, peer-reviewed medical
research. We have strict disclosure rules in place so that readers are
aware of any financial interests behind a specific article or journal,
or when entire compilation products are created for pharmaceutical
marketing purposes.
2) Our support for the Research Works Act comes down to a question of
preferring voluntary partnership with government agencies and other
funders to promote access to research works, rather than being subjected
to inflexible government mandates like the NIH policy, which don't take
into account the needs of different journals.
One of Elsevier's primary missions is to work towards providing
universal access to high-quality scientific information in sustainable
ways. We support the bipartisan bill, which seeks to prevent US
government policies, like the one imposed by the NIH, that mandate the
dissemination of journal articles published and funded by the private
sector. Elsevier and other publishers have embraced and nurtured a
whole range of access options to ensure broad dissemination - author
pays journals, delayed access, manuscript posting, and patient access,
to name a few. We've worked constructively with a number of government
agencies to develop new ways to expand access to journal articles
reporting on, analyzing and interpreting agency-funded research. But
like other publishers and societies we have always opposed the adoption
or extension of the NIH policy, which restricts the author's freedom to
choose where to publish and undermines the sustainability of journals
published by the private sector. The legislation is an effort to
prevent such unsustainable policies.
Elsevier has been continually expanding access to content. In fact, we
were the first and largest contributor to PubMed Central as part of the
NIH's voluntary posting pilot in 2005. What we're opposed to is the
mandate that forces us to contribute our content to PubMed Central, and
potentially other platforms, in ways that aren't sustainable to
commercial and non-profit publishers. That's why publishers are fighting
these government mandates even if it means taking an unpopular
stance.
For several years, Elsevier has been a major partner in three
information philanthropy initiatives. Health InterNetwork Access to
Research Initiative (HINARI), Access to Global Online Research in
Agriculture (AGORA) and Online Access to Research in the Environment
(OARE) are aimed at those countries that have the least amount of access
to information resources. In most advanced countries, access to research
is not a pressing problem for researchers, when compared to other
issues, such as funding. In the poorest countries, it is a more
fundamental barrier. Publishers like Elsevier have been working hard to
close down this gap. Together the programs offer scientists in 114
eligible countries free or low-cost access to some 7,500 scientific
journals, books and databases.
I hope that this background information will be useful to you and that
it may (even slightly) change your opinion on our company.
With kind regards,
Rob van Daalen
Publisher Physical & Theoretical Chemistry
Elsevier - Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Discussion elsewhere
There has been much discussion all over the 'net about Elsevier
specifically and the Research Works Act (RWA) specifically. Hence, the
list below is necessarily far from complete, and only presents some
parts of the complete picture.
comment(s).