Editing Elsevier (section)

===== "The Cost of Knowledge" boycott =====
{{Main|The Cost of Knowledge}}

In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "[[Subscription business model|big deal]]" journal bundling packages, in which the company offered a group of journal subscriptions to libraries at a certain rate, but in which librarians claimed no economical option was available to subscribe to only the popular journals at a rate comparable to the bundled rate.{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=177}} Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=180}}

On 21 January 2012, mathematician [[Timothy Gowers]] publicly announced he would boycott Elsevier, noting that others in the field have been doing so privately. The reasons for the [[boycott]] are high subscription prices for individual journals, bundling subscriptions to journals of different value and importance, and Elsevier's support for [[Stop Online Piracy Act|SOPA]], [[PROTECT IP Act|PIPA]], and the [[Research Works Act]], which would have prohibited open-access mandates for U.S. federally-funded research and severely restricted the sharing of scientific data.<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news |last=Flood |first=Alison |date=2 February 2012 |title=Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205081212/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier |archive-date=5 February 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Chronicle">{{cite news |last=Fischman |first=Josh |date=30 January 2012 |title=Elsevier Publishing Boycott Gathers Steam Among Academics |url=https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/elsevier-publishing-boycott-gathers-steam-among-academics/35216 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210210215/http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/elsevier-publishing-boycott-gathers-steam-among-academics/35216 |archive-date=10 February 2012 |newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref><ref name="Economist">{{cite news |date=4 February 2012 |title=Scientific publishing: The price of information |url=https://www.economist.com/node/21545974 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217030535/http://www.economist.com/node/21545974 |archive-date=17 February 2012 |newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

Following this, a petition advocating noncooperation with Elsevier (that is, not submitting papers to Elsevier journals, not refereeing articles in Elsevier journals, and not participating in journal editorial boards), appeared on the site "The Cost of Knowledge". By February 2012, this petition had been signed by over 5,000 academics,<ref name="Guardian" /><ref name="Chronicle" /> growing to over 17,000 by November 2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=thecostofknowledge.com |url=https://thecostofknowledge.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151204054058/https://thecostofknowledge.com/ |archive-date=4 December 2015 |access-date=12 January 2013}}</ref> The firm disputed the claims, claiming that their prices are below the industry average, and stating that bundling is only one of several different options available to buy access to Elsevier journals.<ref name="Guardian" /> The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".<ref name="Economist" /> The academics replied that their work was funded by public money, thus should be freely available.

On 27 February 2012, Elsevier issued a statement on its website that declared that it has withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.<ref>{{cite web |title=Elsevier Backs Down as Boycott Grows |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/issues-and-information/newmessagerwa |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140911222130/https://www.elsevier.com/about/issues-and-information/newmessagerwa |archive-date=11 September 2014 |access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref> Although the Cost of Knowledge movement was not mentioned, the statement indicated the hope that the move would "help create a less heated and more productive climate" for ongoing discussions with research funders. Hours after Elsevier's statement, the sponsors of the bill, [[United States House of Representatives|US House Representatives]] [[Darrell Issa]] and [[Carolyn Maloney]], issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sponsors and Supporters Back Away from Research Works Act |url=https://www.sparc.arl.org/news/sponsors-and-supporters-back-away-research-works-act |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402190111/https://www.sparc.arl.org/news/sponsors-and-supporters-back-away-research-works-act |archive-date=2 April 2015 |access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref>