The CONTROL of knowledge: Ours or Elsevier’s; It’s High Noon for Universities « petermr's blog

“This is an account of my last few days, continuing to struggle against Elsevier for the right for academics to use their knowledge in the way that they wish... I am going to upset a number of people. But I also hope that some others will see the seriousness of the situation and act. Very simply, academics, we are in the middle of a titanic struggle for our digital future. There is massive power in the knowledge we create and we don’t recognise it. We are giving it away... The current issue is information mining (‘text-mining’). In previous posts I have recounted how over two-and-a-half years I have tried to get permission from Elsevier to text-mine the journals that Cambridge subscribes to. The subscriptions cost a LOT of money. UCL pays well over a million to Elsevier and I have no doubt that Cambridge does as well... note that we don’t OWN the journal, we RENT them. If we stop subscribing we lose the right to back issues... Now I am sure Librarians try hard to reduce costs by bargaining with publishers. But they are trained as librarians , not as salespeople. And the publishers have trampled over the librarians. If you doubt me look at the monster profit margins and the annual rise in costs to libraries... But libraries are fixed on costs and fail to protect our other interests... And worse. Libraries have acquiesced to contracts which forbid academics to use 21st Century tools on the scholarly literature. Daniel Lowe in our Centre has extracted 1 million chemical reactions from the patent literature. 1 year’s worth takes a day on an average desktop. It’s a huge enhancement to our scientific literature. It would save chemists repeating reactions that had already been done. Allow them to predict the best solvents. Find the right temperature. So I asked Elsevier if I could extract reactions from the journals they publisher... It has taken me two and a half years and I still haven’t got a satisfactory answer. Now Elsevier and other publishers are saying ‘All you have to do is ask‘. Well I’ve asked... I am fighting for academic rights and I urge those of you who care to fight with me. The problem is that universities (presumably through their libraries) have meekly signed appalling restrictions in the contracts. If I had known at the time... I’d have done what I could to alert universities to the critical danger. But I didn’t know. Massive rights have been signed over... If you want to do anything with the literature you need the publishers’ permission... I asked Elsevier a very simple question: ‘Can I textmine your journals in the way I want to without being sued or cut off?’ ... Elsevier have repeatedly failed to answer. They suggested that we get together and meet the Cambridge Librarians... So the story starts… [Text of an email begins here] ‘From Alicia Wise, Department of ‘Universal Access’ ... Dear Anne, Patricia, [CUL library top management] and Peter [PMR] We are keen to arrange a teleconference with you all to discuss ways to enable text mining for academics at Cambridge University.  I met Peter for the first time on Wednesday, and he clearly feels very frustrated with Elsevier as he has sought in various ways to obtain text mining services for the last couple of years.  We clearly need to focus on his specific project, but I am hopeful that in parallel we can explore whether there is a broader text mining requirement at Cambridge (I strongly suspect there is) and the best way to empower the library to support this.  By working together we are most likely to find solutions that will scale. My colleague, Jason Roof, has kindly agreed to set up this teleconference for us. With very kind wishes, and looking forward to speaking with you soon –Alicia’ [conclusion of email] This is the entrance to the rathole. ‘We clearly need to focus on his specific project’. PMR: No we don’t. I don’t want Elsevier to have anything to do with my project. They are only relevant because they are actively preventing me doing my research. And ‘his specific project’. That’s because they are terrified of what I want. I want my rights. I want any subscriber to have access to the literature for whatever purpose. By agreeing to a single project I would fall right down the rathole. I would be bound to go back to Elsevier for every project I wanted to do. My project controlled by Elsevier. Groundhog day for ever. I didn’t ask for a telcon. I asked for the Elsevier robots to be turned off. A telcon is a waste of my time.But it might not be a waste of YOUR time. So I told Elsevier I would record the telcon and publish it. So that you would know first hand what a telcon with Elsevier is like. Jason Roof sent out at 0900 times for yesterday. I said I could make it at 1700. I heard nothing from him and the telcon wasn’t run at 1700. I wasted my time. Elsevier said I had to wait till everyone had CONFIRMED. Are you getting the picture? Anyway a few more mails with Elsevier, more fluff about telcons and more avoidance of my question. So I told them I wasn’t spending any more time on this fruitless process. You may think I’ve rushed to judgment. After all