Azhir Mahmood  🚀 🤖 🧬 🧠 🪐

In mathematics, we have open access (it's called arXiv), so it's precisely the "budgetary envelopes" that bug me. Germany has shown that the world doesn't end if you cut off your Elsevier subscriptions: we should be going in saying that that's what we plan to do ... 2/

unless Elsevier comes up with a new deal that is much cheaper -- I'd be just about OK with a 50% cut. Another thing that irritated me was that Elsevier trotted out the following argument that they make every single time: 3/

"It said its subscription renewals overall were in line with previous years, while the number of articles published, submissions and downloads had risen substantially. It launched 115 new journals last year of which 90 per cent were open access." See what's wrong here? 4/

Yes -- it's Elsevier telling us that we have to pay for whatever they choose to give us. There's no option to say "OK I'll do without the new journals and pay less please." The Big Deal is a horrible market distortion that has allowed above-inflation price increases for years. 5/

Five years ago Jisc talked tough and then about three months before the deadline for the end of negotiations meekly caved in. But it's difficult for them to do otherwise unless we let them know that we're ready to do without Elsevier subscriptions for a while. 6/

And if we're not, then I'd like to see the subjects that can't break their dependence paying the lion's share of the cost. (There are known game-theoretic techniques for establishing who should pay what in situations like this.) 7/7