If Elsevier calculated that its withdrawal of support for the Research Works Act (RWA) would neutralise the arguments stirred up around academic publishing, I think the company is mistaken.

Short Version Please read the Wellcome Trust’s policy on open access. And then adopt it. Thank you. Long Version Please read the Wellcome Trust’s policy on open access. It’s short so I’ve pasted it below. The policy states (with my emphases in purple): As a policy it is clear and purposeful. It is built upon the principle that OA is good for science and good for the public.

Lately, it’s all been getting a bit intense. Not tetchy, as at the Scholarly Kitchen in recent days, but still pretty focused. Four of the last five posts here have all been about the arguments surrounding the Elsevier boycott and the future of academic publishing.

Since the beginning of the argument with Elsevier over their support of the Research Works Act (RWA) in the US and the announcement of the boycott of the publisher, I have been keen to stimulate dialogue.

My train of thought is still running. Last week, taken aback by the revelation of Elsevier’s deep support for the Research Works Act, an anti open-access piece of US legislation, I declined to review a manuscript for the publisher and wrote about my reasons for doing so. My blogpost received an unusual amount of traffic. It seemed to have caught a wave – started elsewhere – that is sweeping through the scientific blogosphere.

This is going to add minutes to my life – every time I take the bus.

My previous post on Elsevier and the Research Works Act (RWA) stimulated a conversation on Twitter with Benoit Bruneau about the possible impact on the journals of scientific societies of moves to open access publishing.  This is an aspect of the debate that has not been discussed in much detail of late.

All relationships suffer tensions from time to time, especially those based on love-hate. Scientists have a complex relationship with their publishers — they love to get published in high-impact journals (most of which are run by major publishing companies) but hate the abuses of impact factors made by their own community in promotion and funding committees.

Earlier this week I had an interesting email from Jesse Shore, President of Australian Science Communicators, about a blog post I wrote back in 2010. Jesse has kindly agreed to let me post our brief correspondence so I’ll let him take up the story. To which I replied: To which Jesse came back: I very much agree with him: something to build on for sure.

It has been a quiet week in lab woebegone*. Though we have been working to pack up everything for a move across campus in mid-January, Christmas has intervened to scatter us to our homes, where traditionally we have the time to reflect on the year just past and galvanise ourselves for the one to come. Except that this year I haven’t had the time.