Websites that offer products/services but don't list any pricing information other than contact forms for quotes might be my biggest industry pet peeve. I will find a way to not need that product and go with a competitor or an open-source implementation. It's what led me to do research on e-discovery companies and confirm what people like David Tempest fear - if law firms knew how cheap it was to develop their own technologies there's no way they'd pay what they do except to prevent discovery in the first place.
Except in this case, there is no way or extremely limited ways of getting the same information so they get to profit from that as well. Hopefully the academic community comes together on this topic and maybe forms some large alliance with the resources to compete.
Elsevier employees should just quit and work somewhere else. It's just a matter of time before their business implodes. It will be a miserable process and anything to speed it up benefits everyone.
Sure, the board has fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to drag this out as long as possible. But the employees should just walk. Elsevier is a travesty and employees should feel ashamed to be associated with it.
Hypothetically; Elsevier closes today. What happens to their mountains of papers?
I (and many others) constantly mine their journals for old experimental data. Don't get me wrong I'll be dancing on their grave when they close. I'm just concerned the old journals will get sold off to the next big publication house, or worse, get shuttered and closed off for everyone.
Edit: It occurs to me many universities have copies of the old journals and could setup their own sites to host it as soon as copyright isn't an issue.
These clauses are aggressively anti-librarian, and unfortunately librarians don't have a choice but to subscribe at whatever price. Academic papers don't exist in a competitive marketplace; once a non-open access paper is published it's considered part of the permanent academic literature, which academics are professionally required to read and cite. Yet each paper is only available from the publisher that owns its copyright.
It's no wonder why Elsevier draws such ire from the librarian community... an analogy would be if a company legally disallowed its employees from discussing their salaries with anyone, in order to reduce the information available when any other employee negotiates a salary or raise.
And even though David Tempest argues that the main reason for these clauses is to maintain price differentiation between countries, I'd guess that this policy is equally designed to convince small but well-funded US research institutes to keep their non-discount subscriptions, while giving relatively steep discounts to large accounts like the UC system that have negotiating power due to their size.
Fundamentally, the ecosystem of subscription journals is full of non-market dynamics and requires extensive legal management (think NDAs, copyright transfer agreements, DMCA takedowns and copyright infringement enforcement). On the other hand, the rise of Open Access journals has produced a healthy competitive market, where authors can choose where to publish based on a variety of factors including cost, quality of peer review, user-friendly submission tools, and prestige of the journal brand. Plus, copyright is largely a non-issue for open access: authors keep their copyright and there's no cost to the publisher for enforcing against infringement.
I think the more market-driven nature of OA, plus the obvious desire to have publicly-funded research be publicly available, will compound its growth and cause it to eventually overtake the subscription journal model.
It's no wonder why Elsevier draws such ire from the librarian community... an analogy would be if a company legally disallowed its employees from discussing their salaries with anyone, in order to reduce the information available when any other employee negotiates a salary or raise.
A great comment, but did you intend the part I quoted as ironic? You are correct about the intent and the effect, but I think many (most?) companies request this of employees, and some require it. For managers and supervisors in some states, this is even legally defensible: http://ask.metafilter.com/45192/Wait-you-make-50k-more-than-...
No, I didn't intend the irony — I didn't know it was common for employers to formally request that salaries be kept confidential.
However, even if intra-company sharing is discouraged / disallowed, it is still common for job-seekers to know what salary they could expect based on their skill level, other offers of employment, sites like glassdoor, etc.
Perhaps more accurately, you might say journal subscription NDAs are like the only employer in the world threatening to fire you if you ever posted your salary to glassdoor or shared it with a friend who's just starting his career what he might expect to make.
For a CS student or professional, not nearly so irritating as the ACM and IEEE duopoly.
My university subscribes to ACM and IEEE databases, so I should be in a better position than most, but somehow that doesn't include IEEE conference proceedings, which is where the papers that (possibly) matter appear. It's not a mystery why people in this field are so crap at staying on top of this kind of stuff: the stuff is hidden.
Except in this case, there is no way or extremely limited ways of getting the same information so they get to profit from that as well. Hopefully the academic community comes together on this topic and maybe forms some large alliance with the resources to compete.