MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract (sparcopen.org)

Article summary

MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing its largest journal contract with Elsevier as overwhelmingly positive, resulting in annual savings of over $2 million. The decision was made after the university developed a new framework with value-based principles for institutional contract negotiations with publishers. The Libraries provided alternative means of access to articles, including interlibrary borrowing and a service called Article Galaxy, which offers per-article access. This move has been relatively seamless, with minimal pushback from researchers.

Main themes

• Open Access
• Academic Publishing
• Elsevier Contract
• MIT Libraries
• Scholarly Communication
• Journal Pricing

What commenters say

• The value added by Elsevier is questionable, and alternative platforms like arXiv can provide similar services at a lower cost.
• The prestige of publishing in certain journals is a major factor in the decision to publish with traditional publishers like Elsevier.
• Curation is an important aspect of academic publishing, but it can be achieved through other means, such as open-access journals or community-driven initiatives.
• The high costs of open-access publications can be a barrier to adoption, but some argue that the costs of traditional publishing are even higher.
• Authors have the power to choose where to publish their work, and many continue to choose traditional publishers despite the availability of alternative options.
• The quality of typesetting and editing in traditional journals is not necessarily superior to that of open-access publications or self-published works.
• The role of trust and reputation in academic publishing is complex, and some argue that it is not necessarily tied to traditional publishers like Elsevier.
• Alternative access models, such as per-article access, can be a viable solution for institutions looking to reduce costs and increase accessibility.