The university, its open access policy, the academics and their freedom – Lizzie Gadd

“However, I am naive enough to hope that if academics, supported by their universities, have an informed debate about IP, OA and academic freedom, that there will be enough agreement to lead us towards something better than the situation we find ourselves in now.”

via The university, its open access policy, the academics and their freedom

Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority

We finally got around to doing this..

Today, along with Stuart Lawson and Jon Tennant, I have submitted the below as a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, making good on the advice of Ann McKechin, MP at the BIS Inquiry into Open Access in 2013. The document is also available as a PDF.

Source: Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing

Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority | Martin Paul Eve

TL,DR: We’re finally attempting to initiative legal action against Elsevier for their market practices. It’s on.

Today, along with Stuart Lawson and Jon Tennant, I have submitted the below as a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, making good on the advice of Ann McKechin, MP at the BIS Inquiry into Open Access in 2013. The document is also available as a PDF.

Source: Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing

The social, economic, and academic impacts of Open Access – done, and done.

For the 3-4 regular readers of this blog, you’re probably aware that a while back we published a paper with F1000Research reviewing the evidence behind the societal, economic, and academic impacts of Open Access.

Today, we submitted what I like to think of as the ‘final’ version of that paper. We have taken on an enormous wealth of feedback from the community through formal peer review, comments, open discussion on social media, and personal conversations, and integrated all of this into the manuscript. This discourse has greatly improved the content, and I hope you all find it to be a useful basis for further discussions of Open Access.

I consider this to be the final version, as thanks to this extensive ‘peer review’ I feel there is little more which can be significantly altered. Of course there will always be future developments and debates in Open Access, but rather than adapt the paper fluidly with this, I’d rather consider it to be a good reference point on which to base these discussions.

That does not mean that everything in the paper is perfect. I strongly encourage further discussion and debate on the article itself, continuing the rich comment thread that exists already. If something major comes up that we have failed to include, then we will open up considerations for a new version.

Finally, please do share this paper with your friends and colleagues. It’s such a damn important topic, and well-worth being informed about. Remember, Open Access isn’t about policies, mandates and embargoes – it’s about freedom, equality, and democratic access to our core global knowledge base. That’s something worth fighting for.