A peer-review system for the ArXiv?

[dcpo]

I'm not arguing for a change in arXiv, or that journals shouldn't be allowed to profit, only that by abandoning print journals and moving away from for-profit publishers subscription costs could be significantly reduced (at least in maths). Sometimes commercial publisher math journals do charge an order of magnitude more (per page) than journals run by societies (that still turn a profit on subscriptions). Anyway, I'm in a rush and probably won't be able to reply for a few days, but I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing about very much.

 

[mheslep]

It's even worse in economics and management. There the academics are in their own world that very few people outside take seriously any more. I don't know of any non-academic in economics and management that actually reads or cares about what's in the peer reviewed literature...

Apparently the NBER working papers are almost the exact economics equivalent to ArXiv. Apropos:

...So, the starting point for me, when thinking about how economics works as a discipline, is to realize that the traditional model of submit, get refereed, publish, and then people will read your work broke down a long time ago. In fact, it had more or less fallen apart by the early 80s.Even then, nobody at a top school learned stuff by reading the journals; it was all working papers, with the journals serving as tombstones.

 

[dcpo]

There has recently been a surge of interest in the problem of journal subscription fees in the mathematical community, with notable figures such as Terry Tao and Timothy Gowers adding their considerable weights to the discussions. Here is a recent blog post from Gowers, dealing with the subject of online review systems.

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/abstract-thoughts-about-online-review-systems/#more-3973

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not arguing for a change in arXiv, or that journals shouldn't be allowed to profit, only that by abandoning print journals and moving away from for-profit publishers subscription costs could be significantly reduced (at least in maths).

I don't think you are going to vastly reduce costs. People that assume going online will reduce costs have usually been extremely disappointed. Going online usually increases costs, but you get other things.

Now you could radically change who pays the cost. For example, one thing that you could do is the "defense contractor" model in which the government pays the big publishers a big flat fee in exchange for releasing all of the copyrights. This is more or less the way that it works in astrophysics.

 

[twofish-quant]

For example, we might be on a hiring committee for a job with hundreds of applicants. If so, we need quick, and therefore crude, methods of evaluation. Journals give us one such method: we just skim through the publication list and get a sense of the quality of the journals that a candidate has managed to publish in.

If you are going to "outsource" this sort of work, one shouldn't be surprised if the people that you outsource this work to, end up demanding money to do your homework. I don't think it's possible to talk about problems in the journal system without also talking about issues of academic hiring and "publish or perish."

If you end up with a situation in which notable mathematicians say that they no longer care about what journals people publish in, and they are willing to spend the money to do independent evaluations of papers published in arxiv, then you fix the problem. If you argue that doing independent evaluations is "too expensive" then I don't see why one complains about journal fees. Right now, you are essentially paying a company to make hiring decisions for you, and it's not surprising that they will charge you through the nose to do that.

Also the way that astrophysics works is that if you want to know whether an article in a field that you don't know about is good or not, you e-mail someone that you know and they'll tell you. One problem in making the system public is that you often get much better evaluations over private e-mail or face to face.

Something that I've found interesting is that you often get much better critiques if you keep people's identities quiet since that means that you aren't defending your reputation every time you make a forum post or post something online. Something that people will tell you over private e-mail or face to face is "this paper stinks" or "this author is a crank" and that's something I don't think you can get people to say if they are being tracked.

 

[dcpo]

I don't think you are going to vastly reduce costs. People that assume going online will reduce costs have usually been extremely disappointed. Going online usually increases costs, but you get other things.

I don't doubt that this is true in general, but every serious mathematics journal that I know of already maintains an online presence, with full electronic access to their papers etc. so I'm curious what extra costs would arise from eliminating the apparatus associated with the production of the paper journals.

Now you could radically change who pays the cost. For example, one thing that you could do is the "defense contractor" model in which the government pays the big publishers a big flat fee in exchange for releasing all of the copyrights. This is more or less the way that it works in astrophysics.

It is striking how different the journal system appears to be between fields. Who pays for publication is a related but slightly tangential question. In the mathematical community the fees charged by the likes of Elsevier are being viewed by an increasing number of people as extortionate. For example see the current boycott of Elsvier by a number of mathematicians, and, as another example, the resignation of the entire editorial board of a prestigious mathematics journal in protest at Elsevier policy a few years ago. How related is the 'fairness' of the pricing structure to who pays the bill?

If you are going to "outsource" this sort of work, one shouldn't be surprised if the people that you outsource this work to, end up demanding money to do your homework. I don't think it's possible to talk about problems in the journal system without also talking about issues of academic hiring and "publish or perish."

If you end up with a situation in which notable mathematicians say that they no longer care about what journals people publish in, and they are willing to spend the money to do independent evaluations of papers published in arxiv, then you fix the problem. If you argue that doing independent evaluations is "too expensive" then I don't see why one complains about journal fees. Right now, you are essentially paying a company to make hiring decisions for you, and it's not surprising that they will charge you through the nose to do that.

Also the way that astrophysics works is that if you want to know whether an article in a field that you don't know about is good or not, you e-mail someone that you know and they'll tell you. One problem in making the system public is that you often get much better evaluations over private e-mail or face to face.

Something that I've found interesting is that you often get much better critiques if you keep people's identities quiet since that means that you aren't defending your reputation every time you make a forum post or post something online. Something that people will tell you over private e-mail or face to face is "this paper stinks" or "this author is a crank" and that's something I don't think you can get people to say if they are being tracked.

I'm not aware of any serious argument that journals do not currently provide useful services, (theoretically) anonymous review being one of them. Among the questions that are being discussed at this time on various blogs (for example Timothy Gowers' blog which I linked to earlier) are, what exactly these services are, to what extent they justify the fees that some publishers are charging, and how can alternative publication models replace or improve on them? That there is something very wrong with the current system has effectively been decided.

Even within the paper journal system, the AMS, for example, produces reputable mathematics journals, several of which are of the very highest quality, and they do so without charging anything like the same fees that Elsevier does.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't doubt that this is true in general, but every serious mathematics journal that I know of already maintains an online presence, with full electronic access to their papers etc. so I'm curious what extra costs would arise from eliminating the apparatus associated with the production of the paper journals.

If you move from paper to 100% online then there are substantial costs. For example, if you go with a subscription pay wall, then you have to pay someone to deal with lost passwords, set up databases, monitor cheating etc. etc. Also, the costs of maintain data in "dead tree" format is low. You put dead trees into a room, keep it air conditioned with good humidity, and that's it. For electronic data, you have to pay for electricity, server upgrades, and format transfers. If 100x people want to read your dead tree book, the extra costs are low, but if 100x people start hitting your servers, they will crash.

It gets worse because the capital costs associated with dead trees are sunk costs. People have already paid for the printing infrastructure, and as long as the people are printing something, the extra cost of printing journals is nil.

Also paywalls are horrible business models electronically because of the cost of maintain the paywall, which is why in any situation where you have a alternative business model, it's used. In astrophysics, the cost of publishing is ultimately paid for by tax dollars, but it's set up so that everyone has access to the journal article at http://adswww.harvard.edu/

It is striking how different the journal system appears to be between fields.

Yes. In astrophysics the journals are not gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are the funding and grant committees. Once you have funding and have done your experiment, then people are going to be very annoyed if there is another layer of bureaucracy to get your results out. Journal publication in astrophysics tends to be "rubber stamp" in that you get results, you send them to Ap.J., and unless you are totally incompetent, they'll get published eventually. In the meantime, you've already sent out a preprint so that everyone knows about the result months before it appears in Ap.J.

It's also striking that the journals are run by the professional societies, who are non-profit. My guess is that for-profit publishers realize that they can't make money from astrophysics journals, because if journals started monopolizing publication, people would just start sending preprints to other. One corollary of this is that just because you are published doesn't mean much. Ap.J. has been known to publish nutty stuff.

One thing about arxiv.org is that you are sharing the system with people from other fields who have other workflows, and one thing that you need to be careful is not to change the system so that it messes up how things work in other fields.

How related is the 'fairness' of the pricing structure to who pays the bill?

If someone else pays, I don't care about the details. Someone's budget might be getting totally screwed over in paying for ADS or the Los Alamos preprint server, but since it's not coming from me and since I benefit from access, I don't care as long as they keep doing it. One other characteristic of astrophysics is that there are some large multi-billion projects. Since NASA spends several billions on space probes, then the cost of keeping ADS or the Los Alamos preprint servers up and running is a rounding error.

But money is still power. I suspect that most of the money that comes to fund Los Alamos comes from particle physics and astrophysics, so if you want to change things in a way that benefits mathematicians but annoys particle and astrophysicists, it's not going to happen.

I'm not aware of any serious argument that journals do not currently provide useful services, (theoretically) anonymous review being one of them.

Curiously I don't think that peer review is important in astrophysics journals. The other thing is that in practice, the reviews aren't that anonymous. If you can't figure out who is likely to review your paper, then you really shouldn't be publishing since you haven't done background research. The fact that I think that peer review at the journal level is largely irrelevant in astrophysics (and I think this isn't a wild opinion) is why I'd push back on introducing anything like it in Los Alamos.

The major benefit that I see astrophysics journals providing is long term archiving, and maybe some very light quantity control. Also, the big benefit of getting published is that your paper will forever be in ADS.

How can alternative publication models replace or improve on them? That there is something very wrong with the current system has effectively been decided.

But you have to realize that different fields have very different systems. I don't know of any astrophysicists who I respect that have serious issues with the way that things work in that field.

By contrast, the publication system in economics is widely regarded as seriously, seriously, seriously broken. It's not that the journals are expensive, but that the culture creates this sort of "tunnel vision" that has led to some really bad consequences (like the entire world financial system collapsing).

What doesn't make any sense is to me is if people in mathematics hate the for-profit journals, why not just cancel the subscriptions, and have everyone put their stuff on their websites, which is the way that it works in astronomy. Before the web started, there was a vibrant system of "paper preprints" and all the web did was to move those into the electronic world.

Even within the paper journal system, the AMS, for example, produces reputable mathematics journals, several of which are of the very highest quality, and they do so without charging anything like the same fees that Elsevier does.

So why not publish everything through AMS and walk away from Elsevier? This is something of an intentionally naive question, but it's something that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Obviously, Elsevier has found a "choke point" and like any for-profit company it's going to exploit that choke point to make a ton of money. That "choke point" doesn't seem to exist in astrophysics, and I'm trying to understand what exactly it is.

 

[dcpo]

If you move from paper to 100% online then there are substantial costs. For example, if you go with a subscription pay wall, then you have to pay someone to deal with lost passwords, set up databases, monitor cheating etc. etc. Also, the costs of maintain data in "dead tree" format is low. You put dead trees into a room, keep it air conditioned with good humidity, and that's it. For electronic data, you have to pay for electricity, server upgrades, and format transfers. If 100x people want to read your dead tree book, the extra costs are low, but if 100x people start hitting your servers, they will crash.

It gets worse because the capital costs associated with dead trees are sunk costs. People have already paid for the printing infrastructure, and as long as the people are printing something, the extra cost of printing journals is nil.

Also paywalls are horrible business models electronically because of the cost of maintain the paywall, which is why in any situation where you have a alternative business model, it's used. In astrophysics, the cost of publishing is ultimately paid for by tax dollars, but it's set up so that everyone has access to the journal article at http://adswww.harvard.edu/

The thing is that all the maths journals I'm aware of already archive their material electronically, and have their own pay wall systems for electronic access. I personally don't know anyone who does not obtain the vast majority of the articles they read electronically, though I'm sure a few exist somewhere, but even allowing for this I don't see where a huge increase in server traffic would come from should these journals cease print production. I still see print production as being a relevant source of expense, because it creates the need for professional typesetters, which I'm far from convinced do not add a not insignificant amount to the production cost of a journal.

Yes. In astrophysics the journals are not gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are the funding and grant committees. Once you have funding and have done your experiment, then people are going to be very annoyed if there is another layer of bureaucracy to get your results out. Journal publication in astrophysics tends to be "rubber stamp" in that you get results, you send them to Ap.J., and unless you are totally incompetent, they'll get published eventually. In the meantime, you've already sent out a preprint so that everyone knows about the result months before it appears in Ap.J.

It's also striking that the journals are run by the professional societies, who are non-profit. My guess is that for-profit publishers realize that they can't make money from astrophysics journals, because if journals started monopolizing publication, people would just start sending preprints to other. One corollary of this is that just because you are published doesn't mean much. Ap.J. has been known to publish nutty stuff.

Unfortunately in maths there's no real effective gatekeeper, and there seem to be a large number of people who don't let a lack of formal education or understanding of maths get in the way of writing maths papers. Also, I know of proper academic mathematicians who are rather notorious for not checking their own results. An issue in maths is that that for most people it's usually a non-trivial undertaking to read and understand a new paper, so the time lost in reading a bad or wrong paper is potentially greater. There is a separate argument to be had about the extent to which peer-review actually addresses this problem.

One thing about arxiv.org is that you are sharing the system with people from other fields who have other workflows, and one thing that you need to be careful is not to change the system so that it messes up how things work in other fields.

Of course.

Curiously I don't think that peer review is important in astrophysics journals. The other thing is that in practice, the reviews aren't that anonymous. If you can't figure out who is likely to review your paper, then you really shouldn't be publishing since you haven't done background research. The fact that I think that peer review at the journal level is largely irrelevant in astrophysics (and I think this isn't a wild opinion) is why I'd push back on introducing anything like it in Los Alamos.

The major benefit that I see astrophysics journals providing is long term archiving, and maybe some very light quantity control. Also, the big benefit of getting published is that your paper will forever be in ADS.

Again the difference between fields is striking, though the largely theoretical nature of the anonymity of the review process is similar, especially if you post a preprint on arXiv.

But you have to realize that different fields have very different systems. I don't know of any astrophysicists who I respect that have serious issues with the way that things work in that field.

By contrast, the publication system in economics is widely regarded as seriously, seriously, seriously broken. It's not that the journals are expensive, but that the culture creates this sort of "tunnel vision" that has led to some really bad consequences (like the entire world financial system collapsing).

It sounds like the system in astrophysics works well, I can't comment on the situation in economics as it's not something I'm familiar with.

What doesn't make any sense is to me is if people in mathematics hate the for-profit journals, why not just cancel the subscriptions, and have everyone put their stuff on their websites, which is the way that it works in astronomy. Before the web started, there was a vibrant system of "paper preprints" and all the web did was to move those into the electronic world.

I suppose one issue is access to archives. Maths papers remain relevant for longer than papers in most other fields, and the whole timescale for review, publication and citation is lengthened. It's entirely plausible that a working mathematician would require access to an article written by someone no longer in a position to put a copy on arXiv.

So why not publish everything through AMS and walk away from Elsevier? This is something of an intentionally naive question, but it's something that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Obviously, Elsevier has found a "choke point" and like any for-profit company it's going to exploit that choke point to make a ton of money. That "choke point" doesn't seem to exist in astrophysics, and I'm trying to understand what exactly it is.

The problem for individual mathematicians is that the current AMS journals are of a higher standard than even quite good maths papers, so if the average mathematician were to only publish when he or she had a paper of suitable standard they wouldn't publish very much. Of course there are professional society and university run journals with lower standards, but often a subfield is dominated by journals from professional publishers. I can't say anything about how this situation may have developed, but it does appear to be the case.

Here is a statement from some of the mathematicians behind the current boycotting of Elsevier. It is signed by at least two fields medalists, and the president of the IMU.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, if there is a problem that the society journals are too "high standard", the societies can always start more journals. The APS has multiple journals that each over different needs. Nature Publishing Group has a number of journals with lower impact factors than Nature - because there is a need.

Second, I've said this before, but it doesn't seem to be sticking. If Elsevier is making a 30% profit on their journals, banning profit (perhaps by starting a new non-profit journal) won't cause prices to fall by a factor of 10, or even 2. They will fall, on average, around 30%.

 

[dcpo]

First, if there is a problem that the society journals are too "high standard", the societies can always start more journals. The APS has multiple journals that each over different needs. Nature Publishing Group has a number of journals with lower impact factors than Nature - because there is a need.

Second, I've said this before, but it doesn't seem to be sticking. If Elsevier is making a 30% profit on their journals, banning profit (perhaps by starting a new non-profit journal) won't cause prices to fall by a factor of 10, or even 2. They will fall, on average, around 30%.

The establishment of new mathematics journals is one of the many things being discussed, but is not itself a particularly simple thing to do.

I don't think your reasoning about Elsevier profits is necessarily correct, as Elsevier presumably structures its business to maximize its net profit rather than its profit margins. In any case the available data appears to show that several journals operate at some profit with prices significantly less than the 77% of Elsevier's lower bound your theoretical 'elimination of profit' calculation implies.

 

[twofish-quant]

I still see print production as being a relevant source of expense, because it creates the need for professional typesetters, which I'm far from convinced do not add a not insignificant amount to the production cost of a journal.

High end computer programmers get paid more than professional typesetters. Also for any sort of real world computer systems you'll have to hire usability experts and graphic artists, so I don't see the cost savings. The issue here is that once you've printed the journal, then you no longer have to pay the typesetter, whereas you still have to pay a rather large team of people to maintain the website indefinitely.

I just don't see the cost savings. A lot of this comes from my own experience in running a website.

Unfortunately in maths there's no real effective gatekeeper, and there seem to be a large number of people who don't let a lack of formal education or understanding of maths get in the way of writing maths papers.

There are a lot of cranks in astrophysics, but those can rather easily be ignored. One thing about astrophysics cranks is that even their output is limited. Suppose you publish one paper that claims that the big bang never happened. OK. Now what?

Also, I know of proper academic mathematicians who are rather notorious for not checking their own results. An issue in maths is that that for most people it's usually a non-trivial undertaking to read and understand a new paper, so the time lost in reading a bad or wrong paper is potentially greater. There is a separate argument to be had about the extent to which peer-review actually addresses this problem.

That does make things different from astrophysics. In astrophysics, you can usually tell within three minutes (or sometimes three seconds), if a paper is worth reading. This holds true even in fields that you aren't familiar with. Even if you aren't familiar with a foreign language, you can often tell if someone is talking gibberish.

This removes much of the need for peer review. Except in very exceptional situations, peer review doesn't add much to the process. The only time I've seen peer review be useful is if someone makes an extraordinary claim (i.e. neutrinos that seem to travel faster than light), in which case you want lots of people checking before releasing results. That way even if the claim is wrong, it isn't because of some silly error.

Again the difference between fields is striking, though the largely theoretical nature of the anonymity of the review process is similar, especially if you post a preprint on arXiv.

So if anonymity is theoretical, then what's the point of it?

I suppose one issue is access to archives. Maths papers remain relevant for longer than papers in most other fields, and the whole timescale for review, publication and citation is lengthened. It's entirely plausible that a working mathematician would require access to an article written by someone no longer in a position to put a copy on arXiv.

Astronomy papers and data also need to be relevant for a long time. People routinely look up data from the 19th century, and before (i.e. old supernova observations). As far as I'm concerned, the main purpose of astronomical journals isn't peer-review. It's archiving. And in that respect electronic media is vastly *inferior* to dead-tree media. In my department, you have paper journals that date from the 1900's and photographic plates that date from the 1940's. Those aren't going to disappear when the power goes out. What's more, you aren't having to fork over money every time you look at them.

Archival storage is going to turn into a major problem. If everything goes electronic, there's no reason to think that people in 2100 would be able to get to data from 2010 easily, and this is going to be a big problem.

The problem for individual mathematicians is that the current AMS journals are of a higher standard than even quite good maths papers, so if the average mathematician were to only publish when he or she had a paper of suitable standard they wouldn't publish very much.

So change the rules or start new journals. In astrophysics, the major journals are all "bread and butter" journals. If you discover something really weird, you'd publish in Science or Nature (although the reputation of Science has taken a hit lately).

The other thing is that astrophysics is very much data-driven rather than insight-driven. Even in theory, there are standard "bread and better results." So the bulk of the results are basically, "I looked into my telescope and this is what I saw."

Of course there are professional society and university run journals with lower standards, but often a subfield is dominated by journals from professional publishers. I can't say anything about how this situation may have developed, but it does appear to be the case.

It's important to figure out how the situation developed so that you can change it. One thing that you could ask is what would happen if people just refused to submit papers to journals and just published them on their web sites. In the case of astrophysics, things would get a lot more inefficient, since you'd have to track down papers.

 

[dcpo]

High end computer programmers get paid more than professional typesetters. Also for any sort of real world computer systems you'll have to hire usability experts and graphic artists, so I don't see the cost savings. The issue here is that once you've printed the journal, then you no longer have to pay the typesetter, whereas you still have to pay a rather large team of people to maintain the website indefinitely.

I just don't see the cost savings. A lot of this comes from my own experience in running a website.

Again, I don't doubt that any of this is true, but the cost of maintenance of the computer system is already being paid, so I can't see why there should be no saving from ceasing print production, which at this time is done alongside an electronic system.

There are a lot of cranks in astrophysics, but those can rather easily be ignored. One thing about astrophysics cranks is that even their output is limited. Suppose you publish one paper that claims that the big bang never happened. OK. Now what?



That does make things different from astrophysics. In astrophysics, you can usually tell within three minutes (or sometimes three seconds), if a paper is worth reading. This holds true even in fields that you aren't familiar with. Even if you aren't familiar with a foreign language, you can often tell if someone is talking gibberish.

This removes much of the need for peer review. Except in very exceptional situations, peer review doesn't add much to the process. The only time I've seen peer review be useful is if someone makes an extraordinary claim (i.e. neutrinos that seem to travel faster than light), in which case you want lots of people checking before releasing results. That way even if the claim is wrong, it isn't because of some silly error.

It's relatively easy to tell if someone is talking complete nonsense, but there's a lot of potential for subtle errors in maths, and reviewing papers where the author hasn't been very energetic in weeding them out is, I'm told, a pain.

So change the rules or start new journals. In astrophysics, the major journals are all "bread and butter" journals. If you discover something really weird, you'd publish in Science or Nature (although the reputation of Science has taken a hit lately).

The other thing is that astrophysics is very much data-driven rather than insight-driven. Even in theory, there are standard "bread and better results." So the bulk of the results are basically, "I looked into my telescope and this is what I saw."

It's important to figure out how the situation developed so that you can change it. One thing that you could ask is what would happen if people just refused to submit papers to journals and just published them on their web sites. In the case of astrophysics, things would get a lot more inefficient, since you'd have to track down papers.

Well, a large number of mathematicians are thinking about the situation and what to do about it. As I understand it the current boycott of Elsevier is not so much to get them to change their ways but to draw the attention of mathematicians worldwide to the problem. Any solution will presumably require some kind of general movement, and there is considerable inertia to overcome.

 

[twofish-quant]

The establishment of new mathematics journals is one of the many things being discussed, but is not itself a particularly simple thing to do.

I don't quite understand what the difficulty is. There is this weird disconnect, because sometimes it looks like that starting/running a journal is easy, and then it becomes hard.

It seems to me that all you need is a few senior mathematicians with tenure say that they are no longer going to publish in journals and that if you want to read their papers, go to their website or read their blogs. I mean, you have tenure, right? Or you can have famous mathematicians do a "Siskel and Ebert" sort of thing and have rottentomatoes for math papers.

Once it becomes "cool" not to publish, people won't. Once libraries start cancelling subscriptions and the journals aren't getting submissions then maybe the publishers will be more reasonable.

In any case the available data appears to show that several journals operate at some profit with prices significantly less than the 77% of Elsevier's lower bound your theoretical 'elimination of profit' calculation implies.

But it doesn't matter. If Elsevier's costs are 50 cents and they can charge $1 million, then they should charge $1 million. The whole point of a for-profit company, to maximize profit, and then are set up to squeeze every cent out of you. It's likely that Elsevier *could* charge a lot less, but it's there to maximize (revenue - cost).

If you think that it's a bad idea that a for-profit company does things sorts of things, then it have someone else do it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Again, I don't doubt that any of this is true, but the cost of maintenance of the computer system is already being paid, so I can't see why there should be no saving from ceasing print production, which at this time is done alongside an electronic system.

In the case of a paper publishers, they've already bought the presses and hired the people, so these are already sunk costs. Shutting down an existing business usually cost a huge amount of money.

The other thing is that if Elsevier could move to 100% electronic and fatten their profit margins, they'd do it. In any case, "reducing costs" isn't going to help you. If Elsevier reduces their costs, then it's going to go to the executives and shareholders, and you aren't going to see a penny of it. They'll still charge you the same amount of money, because they can.

Reducing costs is only going to help you if you have several competing firms that are trying to undercut each other. Personally, I'm a fan of paper, since putting things electronically gives all sorts of new ways that publishers can extract monopoly rent. Paper is surprisingly cheap, and I prefer to own books rather than to rent them.

It's relatively easy to tell if someone is talking complete nonsense, but there's a lot of potential for subtle errors in maths, and reviewing papers where the author hasn't been very energetic in weeding them out is, I'm told, a pain.

This isn't much of a problem in astrophysics. If it's a subtle and small error, then it's not likely to change the conclusion. One other thing that may make a difference is that in astrophysics, you want to see the original data or paper. You absolutely need to see what was done or what wasn't done. It occurs to me that in mathematics, once someone has come up with a proof and verified, there's no need to see the original document. (Or maybe not, you tell me). Since you want to see originals, dead trees become important.

Well, a large number of mathematicians are thinking about the situation and what to do about it. As I understand it the current boycott of Elsevier is not so much to get them to change their ways but to draw the attention of mathematicians worldwide to the problem. Any solution will presumably require some kind of general movement, and there is considerable inertia to overcome.

It looks like that Elsevier gets most of their money from the biologists so if you want a general movement, they look like people to talk to.

Also, my brief interactions with that world, is that astrophysicists could be useful because ever time I see a Elsevier flame war, you see people defending Elsevier saying that they do good stuff, and that the world would end if they didn't exist. One thing that the world of astrophysicists should is that you *can* have a world without for-profit publishers, and in fact I think that the fact that there are no for-profits makes things *better*. Something that has been interesting is that astrophysics and HEP has been at the frontiers of electronic publishing, and this is in large part because it doesn't kill anyone's business model. Los Alamos and Wikipedia got started without Congressional hearings.

The other thing is that it's possible to slay the giant. Elsevier is just another media company, and the road is littered with media companies that are in serious trouble because of inability to adapt to technology. Something that worries me a little is that the big publishers aren't quite as incompetent, and they've been suggesting a lot of things that may create new monopolies.

Finally, it's really important not to tick anyone off that you don't have to. Two of the things that have been suggested 1) peer review on arxiv.org or 2) getting rid of dead tree editions of journals are seriously going to annoy people in astrophysics, which is not a good thing if you want a united front.

 

[dcpo]

I don't quite understand what the difficulty is. There is this weird disconnect, because sometimes it looks like that starting/running a journal is easy, and then it becomes hard.

It seems to me that all you need is a few senior mathematicians with tenure say that they are no longer going to publish in journals and that if you want to read their papers, go to their website or read their blogs. I mean, you have tenure, right? Or you can have famous mathematicians do a "Siskel and Ebert" sort of thing and have rottentomatoes for math papers.

Once it becomes "cool" not to publish, people won't. Once libraries start cancelling subscriptions and the journals aren't getting submissions then maybe the publishers will be more reasonable.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe one of the aims of the current boycott is to influence the submission habits of mathematicians away from for profit publishers. People like Tao and Gowers could probably post their research entirely in blog form, and still be tremendously influential. People like me currently need to publish in journals, and sometimes our choices are limited, because otherwise we're not going to get a job. Whatever system or systems are to replace the for profit publishers, if they are indeed to be replaced, will require some form of consensus from mathematicians around the world in order to function. Exactly what the solution will be is unclear, but movement is forming, and prominent mathematicians are taking the lead.