"Would you buy the world a drink?" - is there merit to Elsevier logic?
Just trying hard to understand logic behind Elsevier's statements - any enlightening insights are appreciated!
Funders in some countries are increasingly committed to a transition to open access and working to convince the rest of the world to do the same. However, this attempt to lead by example can be seen as “buying the world a drink” – paying the publishing costs so that everyone receives access, but not necessarily with the guarantee that the rest of the world will buy you a drink in return.
- Do invitations to new visits, seminars, workshops, conferences resulting from people discovering your work through open access count as "buying a drink in return"?
- Do new collaborations? Leading to new job opportunities? For those without permanent jobs?
- Do new citations? Especially by well-known experts boosting authors' visibility by their citations?
- Do new contracts, consultancy, collaboration with companies resulting from discovering your work?
- Does resulting visibility and proof of impact for research funders count?
- Does curing diseases and saving lives resulting from discovering your work count? Including lives of friends and relatives of the authors? Or those of the Elsevier employees?
- Do more effective natural disaster prevention measures count?
- Does pollution and other environmental harm reduction count? Including locations visited by authors? Or by the Elsevier employees and their families?
- Does using factual research-based evidences to dispel fake news count? Along with political and financial implications for the Elsevier employees, their families and friends?
- Does impact on education in developing nations count? Along with implications for large scale emigration of unskilled refugees due to inadequate education in their countries? Along with resulting cost implications for governments and taxpayers?
Dr. Nick Fowler, Elsevier’s Chief Academic Officer: "If you [funders] use all your money to make your portion gold open access,
All your money?? Is this because publishers do not allow customers fair and flexible choice of their products to encourage quality over quantity?
and as I say buy the world a drink, it's not the publishers’ fault if China and the US don't return the favor and buy a drink back.
Isn't it the publishers' fault when these countries don't "buy a drink back" precisely because their access was obstructed and they went elsewhere?
They still rely on you to pay your portion of subscription-based articles.
Or they don't because they prefer to invest in their own infrastructure? Instead of "bying a drink back", had they the access?
That's actually the crux of the matter. How do you not get penalized for being a first mover?
How do you not get penalized by missing out on all the listed benefits?
How do you set an example that others then follow, so that you, as quickly as possible, get to that end state of everything being gold open access?
As Elsevier’s Nick Fowler concluded: "The answer is, we all need to work together, and we are absolutely ready to play our part to help enable open access."
Great words indeed, any concrete action?