Björn Brembs

Sometimes, only small changes are required for potentially huge
downstream effects. Last September, ten international experts have
[identified](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526634) two key decisions
that may help academia to break out of the decades-long lock-in with
academic publishers:

1.  Regulators no longer granting academic institutions the
    single-source exemption for publisher negotiations
2.  Funding agencies updating their eligibility criteria for
    institutions to include modern infrastructures.

EU regulators long-since recognize in principle that academic publishers
are monopolies, i.e., they are [not
substitutable](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/11/prioritizing-academic-publishers/),
justifying the single-source exception granted to academic institutions
for their negotiations with academic publishers (another such
negotiation round just [recently
concluded](https://twitter.com/wtgowers/status/1480911553113247746) in
the UK). Openly contradicting this justification for the single source
exemption, the EU Commission nevertheless [classifies academic
publishing as a
market](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/11/prioritizing-academic-publishers/)
and, moreover, demonstrates with [Open Research
Europe](https://twitter.com/OpenResearch_EU), that public, competitive
tenders for publishing services are possible. This now offers the
opportunity for the first decision: [we
propose](https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-views-of-europe-2022-1-how-to-reclaim-ownership-of-scholarly-publishing/)
that now is the time for regulators to no longer allow academic
institutions to buy their publishing services from academic publishers
that do not compete with one another in such tenders. The consequences
would be far-reaching, but the most immediate ones would be that the
(mostly secret and NDA-protected) negotiations between institutions and
publishers, which allowed prices and profits to skyrocket in the last
decades, would now be a thing of the past. Another consequence is that
the obvious contradiction between academic publishing as a set of
recognized monopolies in procurement regulation, but as a regular market
in anti-trust regulation would be resolved. After this decision,
academic publishing would be an actual market that could be regulated by
authorities in pretty much the same way as any other market, preventing
future lock-ins and monopolies. Yet another consequence would be that
competitive pricing would reduce the costs for these institutions
dramatically, [by nearly
90%](https://f1000research.com/articles/10-20/v2) in the long term,
amounting to about US\$10 billion annually world-wide.

For as long as replacing journals or canceling subscriptions have been
discussed, probably a decade or more now, a recurring question has
always been how to ensure that any saved funds stay within
infrastructure units such as libraries, where these moneys currently are
administered. In this regard, [we
propose](https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/creating-a-market-to-replace-publisher-monopolies/)
that funding agencies may cooperate globally to require eligible
institutions to invest in such modern infrastructure, if they strive to
remain eligible to receive funding. This proposal was already
[considered
feasible](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/01/can-funders-mandate-institutions/)
and one consequence would be that institutions would face immediate
requirements for investments for which the saved funds from the then
illegal publisher negotiations may be a convenient source. Another
consequence would be the de-funding of journals and their replacement
with a superior technology. A combined consequence of the two changes
would be that the scholarly infrastructure would be back under the
ownership of the scholarly community, such that any mistakes,
inefficiencies or new developments could be fixed or implemented without
pleading to international corporations for their generous support. These
ownership rights would also afford the scholarly communities to design
their own [reputation and assessment
systems](https://www.incaseofpeace.org/currencies-in-academia/) as well
as to apply the scientific method for their improvement, continuous
adjustment and development.

While I personally resent the concept of other people needing to help us
cleaning up the mess we have created ourselves, these decisions from
regulators and funding agencies, if implemented, would go a very long
way to assisting the scholarly community to break free of the
exploitative, parasitic lock-in we have been struggling against for at
least 30 years now. In an ideal world, we academics ought to be capable
of solving this [collective action
problem](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/05/minimizing-the-collective-action-problem/)
ourselves. However, I take our less-than-stellar track record over these
last three decades as evidence that we do not live in such an ideal
world and outside help is now the only practically feasible way out, no
matter how resentful the thought of it may be. At the same time, this
same, underwhelming track record suggests that we likely won't be
getting it right on the first try. But because we would then have
control over our infrastructure, we can not only fix any mistakes, we
can also hire experts to help us prevent future mistakes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.: Obviously, 'small' is relative. 'Small' is meant here in relation
to the massive, global consequences these two suggested changes could
potentially entail. "Disallowing the single source exemption" may be
spelled in a 5-word phrase, but may not be politically easy to
implement, especially given massive lobbying efforts from the
corporations. Likewise, while funders may already have acknowledged that
updating their eligibility criteria in the described way would be
feasible, they have also emphasized that it would not be easy. Thus,
while the changes proposed here may look small from an academic
perspective, it does not entail or imply that they are easy or
effortless. Nevertheless, if the integrity and trust of scholarship
around the globe is of any value, arguably, the efforts required for
these changes should undoubtedly be worth it.


Sometimes, only small changes are required for potentially huge downstream effects.

Small changes, big effects

Ross Mounce

In late 2016, Martin Eve, Stuart Lawson and Jon Tennant referred
Elsevier/RELX to the [Competition and Markets
Authority](https://www.martineve.com/2016/12/03/referring-elsevierrelx-to-the-competition-and-markets-authority/).
Inspired by this, I thought I would try referring a complaint to the UK
[Advertising Standards Authority](https://www.asa.org.uk/) (ASA) about
some blatant fibbing I saw Elsevier engage-in with their marketing spiel
at a recent conference.

The content of my submission is below:

**Name: **Ross Mounce

**Ad type:** Leaflets, flyers and circulars

**Brand/product:** Elsevier

**Date:** 26th February 2018

**Your complaint:**  
Elsevier, a large academic publishing company, have flyers and a large
poster, both containing the same information at the [Researcher to
Reader Conference](https://r2rconf.com/) (British Medical Association
House, London). They claim on both the flyers and the poster that "Fact
\#2: Our APC prices are value for money Our APC prices range from \$150
-- \$5000 US dollars..." \[APC means Article Processing Charge, a
publishing service for academic customers\] I believe this is false
advertising as some of their journals clearly charge \$5200 US dollars
as an APC. \$5200 is greater than the maximum of \$5000 advertised. They
also report these prices without VAT added-on, this is also misleading
as this meeting is in the UK. UK customers choosing this service would
have to pay the APC plus VAT tax and so the prices should be displayed
inclusive of taxes in adverts like this. There is no mention of the need
to pay VAT on either the flyers or the poster. I went to their website
the same day and found thirteen journals published at Elsevier, that by
Elsevier's own price list charge \$5200 US dollars, not including VAT.
Those journals are: *Cancer Cell, Cell, Cell Chemical Biology, Cell Host
& Microbe, Cell Metabolism, Cell Stem Cell, Cell Systems, Current
Biology, Developmental Cell, Immunity, Molecular Cell, Neuron*, and
*Structure*. For reference I have attached a PDF of Elsevier's online
price list which I downloaded from Elsevier's official website
here: [https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/pricing](https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/pricing){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/pricing&source=gmail&ust=1526414355514000&usg=AFQjCNEaFZRpq3gTY5XViZKa3a_kBIwcPg"}
which takes one to this PDF
URL: [https://www.elsevier.com/\_\_data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf](https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf){target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf&source=gmail&ust=1526414355514000&usg=AFQjCNE7fpjwNTNzwgn55b3-gxC35KcbuA"}

I attached images of the offending poster and flyers. Below is a photo I
took of the misleading flyer:

[![Misleading Elsevier
Flyer](http://rossmounce.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/flyer-150x150.jpg){.alignleft
.size-thumbnail .wp-image-2184 loading="lazy" decoding="async"
width="150"
height="150"}](http://rossmounce.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/flyer.jpg)

I am pleased to announce that the UK Advertising Standards Authority
upheld my complaint.

Here is their reply:

**[ASA]{.il} Enquiry Ref: A18-443580 -- RELX (UK) Ltd
t/a [Elsevier]{.il}**

Dear Dr Mounce,

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

**Your Complaint: RELX (UK) Ltd t/a Elsevier**

I understand from your complaint that you felt that Elsevier's
advertising was misleading because it did not accurately reflect the
price range of their products and they do not quote prices with VAT. 
Please note that we have only reviewed the leaflet which you forwarded
to us, because we considered that the sign constituted point of sale
material, which is not covered by our Codes.

We have concluded that the leaflet was likely to have breached the
Advertising Rules that we apply and I am writing to let you know that we
have taken steps to address this.

We have explained your concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance
to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how
to ensure that their advertising complies with the Codes.

Comments such as yours help us to understand the issues that matter to
consumers and we will keep a record of your complaint on file for use in
future monitoring. If you would like more information about our
complaint handling principles, please visit our
website [here](https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html){saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html&source=gmail&ust=1526414850918000&usg=AFQjCNEMI1Fo3TCjP67HrhUSnwPHPnTLOg"}.

Thank you once again for contacting us with your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

** **

**Damson Warner-Allen**

**Complaints Executive**

Direct line 020 7492 2173

Advertising Standards Authority

Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn

London WC1V 6QT

Telephone 020 7492 2222

[www.asa.org.uk](http://www.asa.org.uk/){saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://www.asa.org.uk/&source=gmail&ust=1526414850918000&usg=AFQjCNHgIQYbCvf3E8nRheqj8NByolEZOA"}

I am thrilled that the Advertising Standards Authority has officially
upheld my complaint, and I encourage others who notice similar problems
with Elsevier's business practices, and that of other academic
publishers to come forward with further complaints. These companies are
not immune to regulation -- they must abide by the law at all times. The
punishment for now is just a slap-on-the-wrist but if they are
consistently caught misadvertising, stronger punishments can and would
be meted out. Perhaps now is the time for more regulators to start
seriously investigating complaints about these richly profitable
publishing companies with [dubious business
practices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier)? Watch this space...


In late 2016, Martin Eve, Stuart Lawson and Jon Tennant referred Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority. Inspired by this, I thought I would try referring a complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about some blatant fibbing I saw Elsevier engage-in with their marketing spiel at a recent conference.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Small changes, big effects

Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Advertising Standards Authority