Cost of Knowledge

Cost of Knowledge
Name	Cost of Knowledge
Founders	John Sulston, Mike Taylor, Gideon Hartog
Formed	2012
Purpose	Protest against Elsevier
Location	International
Methods	Online petition, boycott, advocacy

Cost of Knowledge

Cost of Knowledge was an online protest movement against the business practices of Elsevier initiated in 2012 that quickly attracted widespread attention from researchers and institutions. The campaign combined an online petition, public statements by prominent scientists, and coordinated boycotts that connected communities across fields such as biochemistry, physics, mathematics, medicine, and computer science. It catalyzed debates involving major stakeholders including publishers, funders, universities, and professional societies such as Nature (journal), Science (journal), American Chemical Society, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Background and Origins

The initiative began after controversies over ScienceDirect, Scopus, and licensing policies associated with Elsevier prompted institutions and individuals to question subscription costs and access restrictions. Founders referenced incidents including support for Research Works Act-adjacent positions, ties to Federal Communications Commission-style lobbying, and alignment with corporate practices criticized by advocates for open access like Peter Suber, Harold Varmus, and Stevan Harnad. Early momentum drew from previous movements and declarations such as the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, and campaigns around repositories like arXiv and PubMed Central.

The Boycott Movement

The boycott asked researchers to refrain from publishing, refereeing, and editing for certain journals published by Elsevier, and to oppose contracts with organizations such as Research4Life and MERLOT. The tactic echoed earlier actions such as faculty-led negotiations at institutions like Harvard University, University of California, University of Oxford, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Public mobilization used platforms and coordination tools associated with communities centered on Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and disciplinary societies including American Mathematical Society, Royal Society, and European Research Council.

Key Participants and Signatories

Signatories included Nobel laureates and notable researchers from institutions including Cambridge University, Oxford University, Stanford University, Princeton University, University of Tokyo, and University of Toronto. Prominent individual participants who voiced support or joined the petition included figures associated with Human Genome Project leadership such as John Sulston and advocates from the computational community around Donald Knuth-adjacent networks and Tim Berners-Lee-aligned web openness movements. Signatories spanned fields represented by awards such as the Fields Medal, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and Turing Award.

Impact on Academic Publishing Practices

The campaign influenced negotiations between consortia like Jisc, Couperin, and BiblioLabs and major publishers, contributed to policy shifts in funders including Wellcome Trust, National Institutes of Health, and European Commission, and accelerated transformative agreements such as read-and-publish deals involving Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, and Taylor & Francis. It bolstered adoption of repositories like Zenodo, integration with identifiers such as ORCID, and uptake of open licensing models promoted by entities like Creative Commons and initiatives around Plan S. The movement also intersected with legal and legislative discussions in bodies such as the United States Congress and European Parliament.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics argued the boycott risked unintended consequences for editorial independence in journals run by learned societies including American Society for Microbiology and Royal Society of Chemistry, and could disadvantage early-career researchers at institutions such as Indian Institute of Science or Universidade de São Paulo with fewer publishing outlets. Publishers like Elsevier and Wiley defended subscription models citing costs associated with indexing services like Scopus, peer review management systems, and archiving partnerships with organizations such as LOCKSS and CLOCKSS. Debates involved prominent commentators from outlets including The Economist, The Guardian, and Financial Times.

Outcomes and Legacy

Although the boycott did not dissolve legacy publishers, it contributed to measurable shifts: increased transparency in pricing discussions with consortia, growth in open access article processing charge negotiations, and strengthened positions by funders such as UK Research and Innovation and Horizon 2020 on public access. The movement influenced subsequent campaigns and reforms including broader adoption of institutional mandates at University of California, San Diego-style campuses, growth of community-controlled publishing platforms like SciELO and eLife, and continuing discourse in forums such as Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition and SPARC. Its legacy persists in ongoing tensions among major stakeholders such as Elsevier, academic libraries, and global research funders.

Category:Open access movement