Alice Fleerackers

#### *Published April 8, 2019 by [Kate Shuttleworth](https://www.lib.sfu.ca/users/kate-shuttleworth){rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" target="_blank"} on the [Radical Access Blog](https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/uc-elsevier-open-access){rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" target="_blank"}* {#published-april-8-2019-by-kate-shuttleworth-on-the-radical-access-blog .wp-block-heading}

The University of California recently took a bold step in support of
open access publishing by [terminating subscriptions with
Elsevier](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)"}, the
world's largest scientific publisher. We asked SFU Faculty for their
thoughts on the cancellation and what this means for open access.

## What happened? {#what-happened .wp-block-heading}

::: {.wp-block-image}
<figure class="alignright is-resized">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/open-access-california.jpg"
class="wp-image-1942" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/open-access-california.jpg 615w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/open-access-california-300x244.jpg 300w"
sizes="(max-width: 461px) 100vw, 461px" width="461" height="376"
alt="Opening access and banning elsevier" />
</figure>
:::

The University of California is committed to making the results of
research freely available to anyone, anywhere in the world through open
access, as indicated by UC's
faculty-driven [principles](https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/ucolasc/scholcommprinciples-20180425.pdf){rel="noreferrer noopener"
aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" target="_blank"} on scholarly
communication and its [Open Access
Policy](https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/open-access-policy/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)"} which was
adopted in 2013. Elsevier charges academic libraries for access to
subscription-based research articles, while at the same time charging
Article Processing Charges for open access articles published by UC
researchers.

UC was attempting to negotiate a deal with Elsevier which would see the
costs of subscription journals offset against the cost of open access
publishing in order to ensure cost neutrality in the shift towards open
access. When a deal could not be reached, UC canceled its Elsevier
subscriptions with support from faculty and the [Academic
Senate](https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/academic-council-statement-elsevier-feb28.pdf){rel="noreferrer noopener"
aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)" target="_blank"}, and provided a set
of alternative solutions for accessing content when Elsevier begins
limiting access to new content.

**Read what SFU faculty had to say about the cancellation on the**
[**Radical
Access**](https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/uc-elsevier-open-access){rel="noreferrer noopener"
aria-label="Radical Access (opens in a new tab)" target="_blank"}
**blog.**  


<em>
 Published April 8, 2019 by Kate Shuttleworth on the Radical Access Blog
</em>
The University of California recently took a bold step in support of open access publishing by terminating subscriptions with Elsevier, the world’s largest scientific publisher. We asked SFU Faculty for their thoughts on the cancellation and what this means for open access. What happened?

Rogue Scholar Beiträge

SFU Faculty perspectives on open access and the University of California’s Elsevier cancellation