-
Recent Posts
- Tech Sharecase, 8 December 2017
- Technology Sharecase, 10 November 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 20 October 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 8 September 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 5 May 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 21 April 2017
- Tech Sharecase, 18 November 2016
- Tech Sharecase, 23 September 2016
- Tech Sharecase: 28 July 2016
- Tech Sharecase on 10 May 2016
-
Archives
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- November 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
-
Meta
Monthly Archives: February 2012
Cost of Knowledge, the Elsevier Boycott
This week’s On the Media reported on the Elsevier Boycott that was initiated in December by Cambridge University mathethematics professor Timothy Gowers. The boycott seeks commitments from academics to refrain from participating in publishing, refereeing and editorial work for Elsevier publications. New Scientist has dubbed this movement, now with 7,000 petition signees, the “Academic Spring.”
The Boycott singles out Elsevier’s business practices as being counterproductive to the spirit and goals of academic publishing–disseminating academic research and knowledge. The boycott’s Statement of Purpose portrays Elsevier as, “a publisher motivated purely by profit, with no genuine interest in or commitment to mathematical knowledge and the community of academic mathematicians that generates it.” As it goes on to explain, there are many publishers that could have been targeted, but Elsevier was chosen as a eggregious example of a publishing company that acts in opposition to the exchange of information in academia.
Below are the three objections to Elsevier’s business practices spelled out at the petititon website thecostofknowledge.com:
- They charge exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals.
- In the light of these high prices, the only realistic option for many libraries is to agree to buy very large “bundles”, which will include many journals that those libraries do not actually want. Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting the fact that some of their journals are essential.
- They support measures such as SOPA, PIPA and the Research Works Act, that aim to restrict the free exchange of information.
For their part, Elsevier has issued their own statement claiming the boycott is based on erroneous information and dispute the assertion that the price increases are unjustified. I’ve gleaned the following points from their press releases and whilst listening to interviews with company spokespersons:
- Per article cost of scholarly publication hasactually fallen in past years,
- Rising costs are associated with the company’s efforts in quality control and for tasks associated with:
– Finding and staffing full-time scientific editors
– Finding reviewers for articles
– Ensuring article integrity - Elsevier costs are also rising because of the proliferation of research from China and India
- The digitization process is also costly
The petition, signees and statement of pupose can be found at Cost of Knowledge.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Cost of Knowledge, the Elsevier Boycott
Tech Sharecase, 3 February 2012
Facebook
In light of the rumored Facbook IPO we began by discussing the information Facebook keeps about its users and their activities. We watched a video posted on Information Aesthetics regarding an Austrian Law student named Max who issued a request to Facebook for his personal data and received a CD containing a 1,222 page document detailing his online activities. EU privacy law compels companies to respond to such information requests from citizens within 40 days.
Apropos this conversation, this past weekend On the Media reported on this very case as well as other stories during this weekend’s episode: “The Facebook Show”. The recent publication of “Web of Deceit: Misinformation and Manipulation in the Age of Social Media” by Anne P. Mintz was also noted during the discussion.
This lead to a review of the recent addition of U.S. Consumer/Lifestyle information to the ReferenceUSA database and the sources for the info contained in this dataset.
Qualtics
We also discussed various forms librarians have built with Qualtrics and the challenges in creating them. Below is one such form for library book purchasing which can be shared with faculty and departments:
http://bit.ly/baruchlibrarypurchases
Other topics
Lastly, we discussed Clicker registration for Fall semester as well as scanning and printing policies and procedures.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Facebook, Qualtrics, ReferenceUSA, Tech Sharecase
Comments Off on Tech Sharecase, 3 February 2012