I also nearly submitted a paper to an Elsevier journal 2 weeks ago without thinking. This despite all the controversy of the last 5 or 10 years. (I always intended not dealing with Elsevier, and edit for a saintly journal.)

We have short memories and too many other things to think about. Previous campaigns have led to more cost for our libraries, not less (for instance they now have to pay for the same Elsevier bundle and the new Journal of Topology).

So it does seem the only solution is indeed to remove our subject from Elsevier completely this time, so our libraries can unbundle themselves from their universities’ bundles. This looks like being a long and unpleasant split.

It’s different from Elsevier in many ways:
* the price list is public and real (you really can order one journal if that’s what you want), it’s not penalty option with crazy prices.
* if you buy the bundle you’re not imposed a confidential clause
* you can choose to revert at any moment to title list if you think it’s best for you.

* you can cancel subscription to one title if you consider it pollutes your library holdings (even electronically) and get a recdutino in costs accordingly
* each title has a single subscription price (which is reasonable)
* price of bundle is computed on some reasonable scheme linked to the delivered content (not previous budget or contract amount with the publisher, not inflation rate + xx% imposed in multiannual contracts)

A perfect example is given by the EMS-publishing house list price: you have a list of journals to which you can subscribe individually (e-only, paper options) and a bundle *option* that represents substantial savings thus an incentive to opt for that.

I intend to start a campaign suggesting editorial committees to resign if they do not get satisfactory tweaking of their publisher policy regarding three major topics:

* no imposed bundling (as above)
* cooperation with the construction of the Digital mathematics library as a general commons: agree on some moving wall and partner with some not-for-profit institution for independent archiving [and eventual open access]
* allow green open access (final author version in arXiv)

I was waiting some feedback from IMU to start the campain, but maybe people here could comment whether it would make any sense?

Thanks, and long live T. Gowers!

-> science publishers influence thomson reuters
-> thomson reuters provides indices to the government
-> government requires impact driven reserch from the universities
-> universities demand impact from their scientists
-> scientists submit their work to the science publishers

it may make sense to focus on elsevier and hope that springer will follow suit. but do you really think that anything can be really changed if the the impact of scientific research is determined by a commercial company?

As an editor of Optics Comm, Prof. Sanders may be able to provide some insight on what benefits to that particular journal Elsevier provides. It may shed some key differences between mathematics and physics.

However, I want to add a voice from a lesser developed nation to the cloud of blog posts and comments made over the last few months on this topic.
1) If elite university libraries can’t afford these pricy journals, spare a thought for poorer nation’s libraries and by extension students. Moreover, these libraries get papers or books usually between 2 to 4 weeks. I have gotten responses at times like “the credit card is overlimit”.
2) This cost issue is well known in Physics with the ICTP assisting individuals of a few, usually the poorest, nations. Please note many under-developed nations and businesses do not invest in science and one can use this as blame, but it does not solve the problem.
3) Reviewing an article for an Elsevier journal means getting full access to ScienceDirect, Scopus, etc for a month. These are very precious resources given these universities expenditure. In fact a helpful person may use this access to get journals for as many individuals as possible.

Active research at varying standards can certainly improve physics education in those countries, inspire new conversations and informed discussions among citizens, which can slowly change long standing cultures through inspiration and empowerment in a myriad of ways.

This solution might well be the pirate bay. A complete archive of all Elsevier journals should not be that large (rough worst case calculation: 20k Journals x 1k pages x 30 years x 30kB for scans < 20TB).