Around the Web: Elsevier vs. vs. Researchers

This is a tale of two companies and a bunch of not-so-innocent bystanders.

Both Elsevier and are for-profit companies in the scholarly communications industry. Elsevier is a publisher while is a platform for scholars that, among other things, allows them to post copies of their articles online for all the world to see.

Both are trying to make money by adding value within the scholarly communications ecosystem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is plenty of room within that ecosystem for all kinds of players, both for-profit and non-profit. It's all about the value you bring to the table. It's about whether or not you contribute to the overall health of the ecosystem or are a parasite.

Recently Elsevier has begun sending take-down notices to for articles that authors have posted where they are in violation of the copyright transfer agreement that the author has signed. Most authors sign such agreements with publishers.

On the one hand Elsevier is completely justified in enforcing their author agreements. I also have little sympathy for They are a for-profit company that certainly understands exactly what their customers are doing. On the other hand, this is a stark reminder to authors just who owns their research outputs. It's not the researchers, it's not the repositories where they might post copies of their articles. It's the publishers like Elsevier who own their research outputs.

Authors are caught between these two for-profit companies, one a massive dinosaur trying to protect its profit margins as it recalibrate to a new, more open world. The other a nimble start-up, trying to be a part of that new world. The road to that new world is full of bumps and false starts and blind alleys. Hopefully Elsevier and's troubles will help raise awareness about the fundamental unfairness of the current scholarly communications ecosystem.

Authors, if you don't want to get caught in the middle of this kind of struggle, don't sign away your copyright to publishers. There is another way.

It's not too late to sign the Cost of Knowledge boycott.

Many of the links below are courtesy of the Open Access Tracking Project.

As usual, if I've missed any important posts, please let me know either at jdupuis at yorku dot ca or in the comments.

Update 2013.12.12. Added new posts up to December 11.

More like this

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundupskip to bottom Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck YearsDecember 15, 2013 Chuckles, COP19, AGU, WTO, Energiewende Bottom Line, Big Banks, Cook,…
This post has superseded my two previous link collection posts here and here. The first focused solely on the Research Works Act, the second added posts on the Elsevier boycott and this one also incorporates posts on the reintroduction of The Federal Research Public Access Act. These three…
So what do I mean by Big Deals. In the world of academic libraries, a Big Deal is when we subscribe to the electronic versions of all (or almost all) of a journal publisher's offerings. Usually for it to qualify as a Big Deal, the publisher in question is going to be one of the larger ones out…
The controversy about Sci-Hub is raging in the halls of scholarship and academic publishing. What's the story, in a nutshell? Sci-Hub is a Russian website that has used donated institutional login credentials to harvest tens of millions of academic articles and has posted them on their site, free…

Nothing like a little chain rattling to remind the surfs that they may have a PhD, or three, but they are still just the hired help.

This is great for institutional repositories or subject based repositories that are not for profit. I hope that researchers value open access to their research enough to self-archive in these other venues.

By Jennifer Dekker (not verified) on 11 Dec 2013 #permalink


Elsevier may have enough clout with take-down notices to 3rd-party service providers like, ResearchGate or (its own!) Mendeley (and might be able to weather the fierce backlash blizzard that will now follow) -- but not if they try it with authors or institutions self-archiving the refereed final drafts of their own research output.

This latest incident is yet another cue to push worldwide for the adoption of immediate institutional deposit mandates (and the repositories' automated copy-request Button) by all research institutions and funders.

Since 2004 Elsevier formally recognizes their authors' right to do immediate, unembargoed OA self-archiving of their refereed final drafts (not the Elsevier PDF version of record) on their institutional websites.

And even if they ever do try to rescind that, closed-access deposit is immune to take-down notices.

(But I don't think Elsevier will dare arouse that global backlash by rescinding its 9-year-old policy of endorsing unembargoed Green OA by Elsevier authors -- they will instead try to hope that they can either bluff authors off with their empty double-talk about "systematicity" and "voluntariness" or buy their institutions off by sweetening their publication big-deal on condition they don't mandate Green OA…)

By Stevan Harnad (not verified) on 11 Dec 2013 #permalink

The latest move by is that now, they only list those of a user's articles that have actually been uploaded to their own website where before, it was possible to just enter the citation and get it listed. I see this and the conflict above as part of an increasing trend to directly compete with rather than supplement the offerings of publishers. They're no longer acting as a gateway to those publications by a user published elsewhere. Because they are structured on the basis of personal profiles, that means there is a strong incentive for people who use the platform at all to publish all their research there, as otherwise their profile may end up looking sparse or skewed. Their user base is now six million. While I'm critical of publishers and the extent to which they make a profit not only from research but also from free peer reviewing etc by academics, driving out academic publishers would not, in my opinion, be good news. They are, ultimately, not a non-profit organisation and they have not, so far, been very transparent on their future business model. Depositing seems a good way, but isn't actually available in all countries...

By Georgia Christinidis (not verified) on 20 Feb 2014 #permalink