Elsevier’s recent update to its letter to the mathematical community

Elsevier has recently put out a new statement giving details of some changes it has made. In their own words,

In February, we informed you of a series of important changes that we are making to how the Elsevier mathematics program will be run. In this letter, we would like to update you on where we currently stand, and inform you of some new initiatives we have undertaken based upon the feedback we have received from the community.

I have known for some time that they were going to make an announcement of this kind, and that it would involve something called “more flexible subject collections”. During that time I have become clearer in my mind what it is that I don’t like about bundling. So before Elsevier’s announcement, I had in mind some tests that I would apply, to see whether having these new collections would mitigate the problems with bundling. (Spoiler: they don’t.)

Imagine you’re in charge of a university library and you have a limited budget. How do you spend that budget? In a system without any form of bundling, if you had an extra chunk of money, you would look around for the best additional utility you could buy with that money — where utility would be something like the number of new journal pages you could buy, multiplied by the average benefit that each journal page contributes to your university. In addition, the following would apply.

(i) If a journal’s quality goes down or its price goes up, then you have the option of subscribing to a different one that is better value for money.

(ii) If your budget goes down, you can decide which journals you value least (weighted by price) and cancel subscriptions to those.

(iii) If somebody wants to set up a new journal that’s better than existing journals in some way (for example it might be cheaper, or of a higher standard, or both), then they have a chance of persuading you to subscribe to their new journal, which you can pay for by cancelling subscriptions to less good journals.

Compare that with the system we have at the moment. What we actually have is this.

(i) If a (bundled) journal’s quality goes down, you can’t cancel your subscription to it. Your only option is to cancel the entire bundling agreement, which is a very drastic step to take.

(ii) If your budget goes down, then your options are to cancel a bundling agreement or to cancel subscriptions to journals that are not part of bundling agreements. The latter is much easier, so smaller independent journals are far more vulnerable.

(iii) If somebody wants to set up a new journal that’s better in some way than an existing journal, they will have great difficulty getting libraries to subscribe to it, because they cannot save money by cancelling subscriptions to bundled journals.

Somebody from Elsevier — I think it was Alicia Wise — defended bundling on the grounds that it protects more obscure journals that might otherwise struggle to find enough subscriptions. It’s possible that that’s the case, but it also protects bad journals, and that is a far stronger effect. If Elsevier were truly interested in protecting good journals in obscure subjects, then it could do what some academic publishers do with books, and use profits from some journals to subsidize others.

To summarize, bundling makes proper competition between journals impossible. That is what I object to about it, and I judge any move made by Elsevier by whether it makes things better in this respect. With that in mind, let’s look at some more of the Elsevier letter.


We already indicated that our target is for all of our core mathematics titles to be priced at or below US$11 per article (equivalent to 50-60 cents per normal typeset page), placing us below most University presses, some societies and all other commercial competitors. That will lead to a number of our titles seeing further and significant price reductions from their next volumes.

Further to this, and in response to feedback from the community for more flexibility around the packages and collections that we offer to libraries, we will take the added step of defining a smaller subject collection (around 15-20 journals) with our key core mathematics titles. The definitive list of journals will be determined shortly but will in any case include journals like Advances in Mathematics, Journal of Algebra, Journal of Number Theory, Journal of Functional Analysis, Journal of Combinatorial Theory A and B, and European Journal of Combinatorics, available with the discount levels offered on our subject collections.

To clarify what this means, let me briefly explain what the current system is, as I understand it. Elsevier has something called its “Freedom Collection” (I cannot help being reminded of the famous Freedom Fries that were popular in the US soon after the invasion of Iraq), which works roughly as follows: a library buys a number of journals at more or less the list prices — the ones it really wants — and then Elsevier offers all the rest, at a very heavy discount. The result of this is that the average price the library pays for its journals is much smaller than the list price. A typical sort of amount for a major library to pay to Elsevier in total is a bit over £1,000,000 per year, of which almost all goes on the “core collection” and only a tiny fraction on the rest. This page has a more detailed description of how it works, and includes the information that if you terminate your bundling contract, then you no longer have access to back issues of the journals outside the core collection.

In other words, everything is set up to make it as difficult as possible to leave a bundling arrangement once you’ve agreed to it.

In the light of all this, what difference does a reduction in list prices make? Very little indeed. It means that if you take the plunge and stop subscribing to the bundle, then it will be cheaper now than it was before. But the list prices are still high enough to make that an unpalatable option, especially given all those back issues you will lose access to. So reducing list prices (which remain very high, even if they are lower than those of many other publishers) does virtually nothing to address the drawbacks of bundling.

Ah, but what about the “response to feedback from the community for more flexibility around the packages and collections that we offer to libraries”? That sounds much more promising, since it adds a new option.

At first it looks ideal: instead of being under considerable pressure to buy a bundle with lots of second-rate mathematics journals, one can now go for the smaller subject collection with the “key core mathematics titles”. But who will want to do this? A library such as Cambridge’s or UCL’s currently subscribes to the Freedom Collection. Can it save money by replacing the mathematics part of that collection by the new smaller subject collection? No. I think there are smaller subject collections in other subjects as well. Can a library save money by subscribing to all those instead of to the Freedom Collection? No. (That last answer comes from a conversation that Urs Hartl recently had with Laura Hassink, Elsevier’s VP for strategy and journal services and one of the two signatories to Elsevier’s update — the other being David Clark. Later I’ll mention some other things that Urs found out.)

There is one kind of institution that could benefit from the new subject collections, and that is mathematics institutes, since they do not subscribe to journals across all the sciences. To that small extent, this move by Elsevier is welcome, but as an answer to the problems of bundling it is woefully inadequate.

Open Archives

In February, we made the archives of 14 core mathematics journals open, from four years after publication, back to 1995, the year when we started publishing digitally. We made more scholarly mathematics content freely available than has ever occurred before. We have now gone further and expanded the open archives back to 1995 for 43 journals in mathematics and related areas. For a full listing of Elsevier journals with an Open Archive, please see our information page.

This is of course good news, even if one might wish for it to go further still. In particular, it would be nice to have journals available from earlier than 1995, since in mathematics there are plenty of papers we want to consult that go back much further than that.

Why don’t they go further back? It’s true that there is a natural boundary in 1995, since, as they say, they started publishing digitally only then. However, they have digitized their archive from much earlier than that, and libraries can subscribe to this earlier part of the archive. So why not make that free? This is what Urs Hartl has to say about Laura Hassink’s response to that question: “She gave two reasons preventing this. First these issues have been bought by some institutions quite recently and it would be unfair to them to open the issues now. I said, I would know a solution for this and she herself guessed that one could solve the problem by refunding the recent buyers. As a response she mentioned the second reason, that there are 1900 issues from societies who had transferred the rights on these issues to Elsevier and want to earn royalties in return.”

I’ve got a partial solution to the second problem: at least make the journal issues available that are not affected by that problem. So a third excuse is needed …

The rest of Elsevier’s letter has less to do with the bundling and pricing issues so I won’t say much here. They have increased the length of time that some of their reviewers receive free access to their journals — a very minor concession since most of their reviewers will be at universities that subscribe to Science Direct, though it may be useful to some people. (They mention retired mathematicians, for example.) There is a paragraph about access for the developing world, which is welcome and important, but it’s not clear that anything substantial has changed. Finally there are three paragraphs of fluff entitled “Support to the mathematics community”.

I’ll finish by mentioning two particularly notable parts of Urs Hartl’s conversation with Laura Hassink. I hope the first in particular will demonstrate why so many people care about the current state of academic publishing and want big changes.

At the University of Münster, which is Urs Hartl’s university, Elsevier increased the price of its Freedom Collection (which is negotiated individually with universities) by 20% per year between 2011 and 2013. Here is the explanation from Urs: “Ms Hassink explained to me that in the contract with Elsevier a ‘committed spend’ of the University of Muenster is fixed. Since the institutes individually canceled titles before 2011 the ‘committed spend’ was not reached and this caused Elsevier to make up for it in the price increase for the Freedom Collection. I replied that this coincides with what various librarians and colleagues had told me. Namely, that no matter what they tried to do, the total amount they pay for Elsevier did not go down. Ms Hassink agreed that in this particular case with the Freedom Collection in Muenster the price increase had this intention.”

The second point is to do with the secrecy that surrounds Elsevier’s negotiations with universities. One of the reasons that Laura Hassink gave to Urs about this was that it would be impossible to offer generous discounts to developing countries if all contracts were disclosed. (I think the argument here is that if you admit to giving a discount to one university then they’re all going to want one.) Urs countered that “according to Florian Breuer’s computations the University of Stellenbosch, South-Africa pays roughly the same than the University of Muenster, Germany.” See also this this comment about the situation in India.

Interestingly, when I tackled David Clark about this issue (we met a few weeks ago) the reason he gave for non-disclosure was completely different. He claimed that there was a danger that disclosing the agreements would be in breach of competition laws, since it would allow the big publishers to coordinate their prices. If that explanation is correct, then the law is an ass. After all, competition laws are there to protect consumers against monopoly power, whereas (i) the lack of transparency of Elsevier hugely enhances their power and (ii) Elsevier effectively is a monopoly, since if they charge more than you like, you can’t get the same journals from a different source.

What about another big concession by Elsevier — the dropping of their support for the Research Works Act? Let me remind you of something they said when they announced this.

While we continue to oppose government mandates in this area, Elsevier is withdrawing support for the Research Work Act itself. We hope this will address some of the concerns expressed and help create a less heated and more productive climate for our ongoing discussions with research funders.

They are as good as their word. Horizon 2020 is the European Union’s “Framework Programme for Research and Innovation”. If you scroll down to page 13 of a long document they have put out, you will find the following sentence at the top of the page: “Further steps will be taken towards Open Access, to ensure that research results are available to those who need them.” At the bottom of the page, it says, “These measures will also focus on communicating the outcomes of research to policy makers, companies, innovators and other researchers, including by promoting Open Access.” I am told by a source that I trust that Elsevier is lobbying very hard to get all mention of open access removed from the Horizon 2020 documents. They have learnt from their mistakes over the Research Works Act — now they do their lobbying behind the scenes. Or at least so I have been led to believe: if any Elsevier representative would like to deny it, then please feel free to do so in the comments below and I will add a link here to the denial. Edit: Alicia Wise has provided a denial in this comment below.

I should say before finishing that this post is my personal reaction to the Elsevier statement: I don’t speak for anyone else, and I don’t guarantee to have got all my facts right. I welcome corrections and alternative views in the comments below.

At the time of writing, the number of signatories to the boycott at the Cost of Knowledge page has just passed 11,000. The number of mathematicians is creeping up to 2,000. It would be nice to pass that milestone soon, and keep on climbing. Nothing that Elsevier has said gives us any reason to end the boycott. They are behaving much as one would expect: offering minimal concessions that will look as good as possible while keeping their profits intact. I realize that asking them to deal with the objections to bundling and exposing their journals to genuine competition is making a demand they are most unlikely to accede to, since their huge profits are based on stifling this competition. So instead, we must press on with the more positive step of developing alternative models, something I shall report on in the near future.

Despite Elsevier’s strong dislike for open-access mandates, there does appear to be significant movement in precisely that direction. Three interesting recent news stories are an announcement by the Wellcome Trust that it would insist on open access for the research it funds, a statement by Harvard University Library that the current system is unsustainable, and an announcement by the British Government that it has plans to make all taxpayer-funded research available online. It is difficult to move to new systems, but external pressure of this kind will surely help.

(Update: The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) has put out a press release responding to the British government announcement just mentioned. It’s worth a read. It is clear that the most important word in the press release is “sustainable” and that it means “capable of sustaining the profits of the major publishers”.)

About these ads

22 Responses to “Elsevier’s recent update to its letter to the mathematical community”

  1. David Roberts Says:

    Elsevier have expanded their open archives (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/open_archives), so that journals will be free to access after 4 years back to 1995. Unfortunately this still doesn’t include Topology. The contents of Topology are still very valuable. Is it because Elsevier cannot sell current issues that they won’t open it up? I find this very mean spirited. There are no problems with past owners of the journal, at least back to 1995, so this is no excuse.

  2. vishuguttal Says:

    Here is an example of situation in India: http://giridharmadras.blogspot.in/2012/05/open-access.html

  3. David Roberts Says:

    Here’s something interesting. From the list of ‘Open Archive’ journals (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/open_archives)

    Journal of the American College of Cardiology…..After 12 months….1983

    that 1983 is when the archive is open back to. Call me stupid, but Elsevier couldn’t have been publishing electronically back then, because _the web didn’t exist then_. Why is this journal available so far back and not others? And from the looks of it, it was or is owned by a society.

    Well, let’s have a look at the society’s page for the journal:


    and we see that the full text, in HTML and pdf formats, is available for all issues from the current one (that’s right) back to 1998 anyway! Why would Elsevier have a moving wall for a journal you can get current issues for free online?

    Then here is another one:

    Biophysical Journal…..After 12 months…..1960

    1960? That’s astounding. It’s owned by the Biophysical Society, who chose Cell Press to publish the journal jsut over three years ago. Let me try to find this journal outside of the Elsevier system…

    …why, it’s all on PubMedCentral:


    completely free from 1960 up to December 2011 (four months ago). So why the moving wall, Elsevier? Why trumpet all this ‘extra free access’ when it is already available?

    There’s one more, and this is even more surprising:

    Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry…..After 12 months…..1990

    I go to the society’s page:


    and I see that in 1996 the journal started having a one-year moving wall with free content back to the start of the journal in 1990. So far so good. This is consistent with what Elsevier have said. But wait! Elsevier doesn’t publish the journal anymore:

    Springer is the publisher of JASMS effective January 1, 2011.” (from the asms link above)

    And clearly May 2012 is more than a year since then, so this journal, as far as it is published with Elsevier, is entirely free with no moving wall. And this wasn’t Elsevier’s decision at all. Ironically, Springer has not gone with the one-year moving wall option, with January 2011 papers not freely available. It is then false to say JASMS is free with a moving wall, and entirely outside Elsevier’s control.

    So the argument that society-owned journals, or journals that were once owned by societies, cannot be made open before 1995 is completely ridiculous.

    In the other direction, included in the list is

    Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré (C) Analyse Non Linéaire (back to 1995)

    but not

    Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics,

    which Elsevier stopped publishing in 2008. I wonder why the IHP only moved one journal, and what stops it moving the other one.

    One other comment: the Journal of Biomedical Informatics is shown to be open back to 2011, with a one-year moving wall. That didn’t seem right to me, so I checked the journal itself (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15320464/34), and it is open back to 2001. At some point the journal changed names, but I think the ’2011′ is a typo. Bit disappointing, really.

  4. obryant Says:

    “So instead, we must press on with the more positive step of developing alternative models, something I shall report on in the near future.”

    I’m on the edge of my seat!

  5. Bill Fahle Says:

    I definitely like the idea of open access; in particular, independent researchers are hurt by these library bundles. However, I have trouble imagining a solution to the back-issues problem you mention. Suppose you are successful and cut all support for Elsevier and they go bankrupt. What becomes of the back issues then?

    Presumably they paid someone to digitize all those back issues, as I doubt they could interest even grad students in volunteering for that work. Maybe the free access model is backward, and they should only charge for back issues. I worry about similar problems for open access journals, in that they have to have some way to keep the lights on. Let’s hope it’s not advertising.

  6. Wayne Bivens-Tatum Says:

    “Suppose you are successful and cut all support for Elsevier and they go bankrupt. What becomes of the back issues then?”

    If that happens, the back issues would be available to all through Portico, which is “a digital preservation service provided by ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.” Portico works with dozens of publishers, including Elsevier, to ensure the preservation of digital journals should the publisher go out of business or cancel the journal.


  7. Alicia Wise Says:

    Dear Tim,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for the opportunity to comment on your blog. In it you quote a trusted sourced who seriously misrepresents Elsevier’s lobbying objectives in Europe. We are lobbying to ensure that whatever policy is adopted can be implemented successfully, not in any way to remove reference to open access from the Horizon 2020 documents. Elsevier is committed to providing broad access to information, and we deploy a full range of business models. We look forward to working closely with the Horizon 2020 team, as we already work with a range of funders, to successfully implement their open access policies.

    Our growing portfolio of open access options is summarized online at: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/open_access

    Our agreements with funding bodies here: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements

    With kind wishes,

    Director of Universal Access

    • gowers Says:

      Thank you for that clarification. If I interpret you correctly, there have been proposals for policies that you feel cannot be implemented successfully — hence the need for lobbying. It would advance the discussion in a very helpful way if you could tell us what they are and what is wrong with them.

  8. Richard Scott Says:

    Dear Tim,

    The law isn’t an ass on contract secrecy – I can’t see any reading of EU competition law that supports David Clark’s line about opacity of contracts. Lack of transparency aka information asymmetry is Market Failure 101.

    Every authority on competition policy and market failure I’ve come across suggests that the potential collusive effects of price disclosure to the market (because other producers can coordinate their prices with yours) are outweighed by the competitive benefits of consumers knowing what other consumers are paying.

    The fact that a company advances different flawed rationales for an anti-competitive practice doesn’t convince me that they are telling the real story.

    And thanks for your campaign from the non-academic sphere. It’s very difficult to implement evidence-based public policy making without access to the scientific evidence, and many government departments don’t have big library budgets. If I didn’t have access through my studies, I wouldn’t see many of the articles I actually draw on.

  9. anon Says:

    One point: retired mathematicians usually retain library privileges, including access to online journals.

  10. May 4, 2012 « MathLib News Says:

    [...] its second letter to the mathematics community, which Tim Gowers has rather neatly dissected on his blog. What’s noteworthy about that to us in the Libraries is Prof. Gowers’ thorough understanding of [...]

  11. Elsevier: The beginning of the end? | Piece of Mind Says:

    [...] Tim Gowers is here to explain and clarify for the rest of us the subtleties in some of Elsevier’s proposals for “reform”, [...]

  12. Stephen Handley (@stephenhandley) Says:


  13. The UK Pledges to Make All Publicly Funded Research Publicly Available With the Help of Wikipedia | Daily Easy News Says:

    [...] community has been in a bit of a stir this year, ever since mathematician Tim Gowers wrote a post on his blog stating his intention sto abandon publishing his findings with any journal run by Elsevier, the [...]

  14. new Elsevier journal! « Xi'an's Og Says:

    [...] journal“. (Elsevier has recently responded to this boycott call by making minor proposals analysed in depth by Tim Gowers.) [...]

  15. Latest on Elsevier boycott | hyperbole Says:

    [...] However, for the most part these are not as significant as they make them out to be.  See this blog post of Tim Gowers commenting in detail on the [...]

  16. Benjamin Steinberg Says:

    Perhaps today’s ArXiv debacle outlined in


    suggests that it may be premature to drop official journals and use a system that is underfunded and partially run by bots? This would seem to indicate that one does need some staff and money and centralized structure is needed to deal with issues that arise. Of course these kinds of problems coud also arise with usual journals (less the bots).

    • Alex Bartel Says:

      Just imagine how much money academic institutions would have available to support arXiv and similar solutions if they didn’t hand over huge sums to Elsevier and Springer.

  17. Horizon 2020 to promote open access « Gowers's Weblog Says:

    [...] you read an earlier post of mine about Elsevier’s updated letter to the mathematical community then you may remember that [...]

  18. Felix Says:

    The competition argument is completely bogus – there’s no obligation whatsoever to keep contracts or prices secret, from customers, or indeed from competitors. The publishers _choose_ opacity to extract the maximum possible out of every subscriber, while making them believe they get favourable treatment.

    The major library you mention, for instance, seems to have struck a significantly more expensive deal than Harvard’s, who pay approx. £2.3m annually for all five major bundlers combined, if I interpret their press release right.

    And, being the most well-endowed university in the world, even for them, this is too much.

  19. pablocecil Says:

    Bundling is coming under pressure in other parts of the media. Here is an interesting piece from The Atlantic.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,418 other followers

%d bloggers like this: