How Politely Decline an Invitation to Review an Article
What if I told you that in that location's an industry that relies on the customer'due south free-of-accuse labour for the selection of products to be sold, the production itself every bit well as quality direction, and that this industry is even able to sell the 'products' produced this way to the aforementioned customers for an exorbitant price and earning a huge turn a profit?
You would say that something is wrong.
Withal, this is exactly what happens in the world of scientific publishing. Using the words of Corey Bradshaw, the whole publishing procedure is relying on nada less than 'slavery':
'And 'slavery' is definitely the almost appropriate term here, for how else would you lot describe a business where the product is produced by others for free (scientific results), is assessed for quality by others for gratis (reviewing), is commissioned, overviewed and selected by yet others for free (editing), and then sold dorsum to the very aforementioned scientists and the rest of the earth's consumers at exorbitant prices.' (Source – 'Conservation Bytes' web log)
There has been a lot of ado effectually the issue, especially later the mathematician Timothy Gowers called in 2012 for a boycott of Elsevier with a postal service on his personal weblog. This led to the the 'Price of Cognition' initiative that highlighted the incredibly high profit that Elsevier, the biggest among scientific publishers, has being reporting in the final decade. In the spotlight of the campaign were Elsevier's business organisation practices, the consequences for the academic sector in terms of unsustainably high subscription costs too every bit the right of authors to achieve easily-accessible distribution of their work. Since and then, has the campaign somewhat lost momentum, simply the discontent towards the whole scientific publishing system has connected bubbling beneath the surface.
Now information technology has erupted again.
In that location's a lot of stir among German (and non but) universities, when it comes to the astronomically loftier subscription prices of scientific journals. Trying to negotiate fair prices, the four biggest universities of Berlin (Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin, and Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin) are canceling their contract with the international publisher Elsevier. Other German language universities are joining the front (e.m. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg) and something like is happening in Finland.
Ane of the chief critical points raised during the negotiation is about the 'Bundle subscription', that for many academy libraries is the only realistic option in order to access the journal collection of the biggest scientific publishers. Basically, some publishers charge exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals, and in calorie-free of these prices, universities are 'forced' to purchase very large 'bundles' of journals, including some they do non really want. 'Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting the fact that some of their journals are essential' (Source: thecostofknowledge.com). The way Elsevier and other major publishers managed to develop their business model, and the mode the whole bookish worlds slowly transitioned within its orbit is beautifully explained in a recent article by The Guardian – Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for scientific discipline? – which I warmly recommend.
This is the context where the Finnish initiative #NoDealNoReview should be framed. Basically, the initiative is calling for fair pricing for academic journal subscriptions and increased open up access in the ongoing negotiation with international publishers. Equally a leverage, the promoters are asking the scientific customs to voluntarily abstain from editorial and reviewer duties in journals whose publishers are unwilling to see the demands of the negotiators.
'It's fourth dimension to stand by that commitment: no deal, no editing and reviews', they say.
I did my share. I received a request to review a manuscript from one of Elsevier's journal. I decided not to commit this time, and not providing my 'free' labour to the publisher. To be sincere, this would not exist free labour, every bit I'm beingness paid past taxpayers for my bookish position. And as such, it is even more immoral to voluntarily handle my fourth dimension (=your money) to a private visitor making profits out of scientific cognition. The effect whether peer review should be budgetary rewarded by publishers, and to whom this money should go (the researcher? the institution?) is an old one, and I practice not want to discuss information technology here. Even so, it is a fact that some publishers accept recently been established that openly embrace the view that the work of academics during the editing process of scientific publication should receive a fair bounty. Even more interestingly, the scientific customs itself is proposing new ways of handling the whole editorial procedure or scientific publishing, calling for the straight engagement of researchers, every bit in the Peerage of Science initiative.
Here's the letter explaining my motivation for refusing to serve as a peer reviewer this time. #NoDealNoReview.
Berlin eighteen/07/2017
Give thanks you for your invitation to review the manuscript for Forest Ecology and Management. Although I'one thousand a strong supporter of the journal'due south mission, having already served as a reviewer, and having chosen the journal in the past for publishing research myself, I decided to decline the invitation to review in order to back up the No deal, no review (http://www.nodealnoreview.org/) boycott of Elsevier.
During the 2016 and 2017 subscription deal renewal negotiations Elsevier has shown disregard for its most valuable resources, the research community, past refusing to offer sustainable prices and open up access for its journals. My Institution (Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin) is currently negotiating new weather condition with Elsevier, but the publisher has shown lilliputian or no openness to listen to my institution's reasons.
I am worried that we will go along to see unfair deals existence offered and negotiations in gridlock, as new renewal talks get underway all over the world.
This needs to end.
Until a fair deal is reached between Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin (but the aforementioned applies to other German and European research institutions) and Elsevier, I will decline from all requests by Elsevier journals.
More data: nodealnoreview.org
With kind regards,
Francesco Maria Sabatini
UPDATE 04.10.2017 – Interesting reading:
Why can Elsevier keep insulting scholars without consequences?
UPDATE thirteen.07.2018
DEAL and Elsevier negotiations: Elsevier demands unacceptable for the academic community
UPDATE 29.05.2019
Wiley, another big published in the bookish world, recently stipulated a "Publish&Read" agreement with the DEAL initiative. In a nutshell, researchers in German research institutions tin now publish their inquiry open up-acces in all Wiley'southward journals, without straight paying the costs, which are included in the DEAL contract.
https://www.projekt-bargain.de/wiley-contract/
Source: https://forestsandco.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/thanks-for-your-invitation-to-review-but/
0 Response to "How Politely Decline an Invitation to Review an Article"
Post a Comment