评论
打印
Science and technology
科学技术
Scientific publishing
科学出版
The price of information
信息的价格
Academics are starting to boycott a big publisher of journals
学术界开始联合抵制某个大型期刊出版商
SOMETIMES it takes but a single pebble to start an avalanche.
有时一块小卵石就足以使冰山崩裂。
On January 21st Timothy Gowers, a mathematician at Cambridge University,
一月二十一日，剑桥大学数学家Timothy Gowers写了一篇博文，
wrote a blog post outlining the reasons for his longstanding boycott of research journals published by Elsevier.
其中陈列了其长期抵制埃尔塞维尔科学出版社的研究期刊的原因。
This firm, which is based in the Netherlands, owns more than 2,000 journals, including such top-ranking titles as Cell and the Lancet.
这个总部位于荷兰的公司主营的期刊就有2000多，包括《细胞》和《柳叶刀》等世界一流的刊物。
However Dr Gowers, who won the Fields medal, mathematics's equivalent of a Nobel prize, in 1998, is not happy with it, and he hoped his post might embolden others to do something similar.
然而菲尔兹奖得主Gowers博士对它不满，并希望其博文可以鼓励他人联合抵制。
It did.
他目的达到了。
More than 2,700 researchers from around the world have so far signed an online pledge set up by Tyler Neylon,
Gowers博士的同事Tyler Neylon受到该博文的鼓舞，在网上发起请愿，
a fellow-mathematician who was inspired by Dr Gowers's post, promising not to submit their work to Elsevier's journals,
目前已有来自世界各地的2700多名研究者签名，他们承诺不会投稿到Elsevier的期刊，
or to referee or edit papers appearing in them.
也不会推荐或编辑上面刊登的文章。
That number seems, to borrow a mathematical term, to be growing exponentially.
签署的人数—借用数学术语来说—似乎呈指数增长。
If it really takes off, established academic publishers might find they have a revolution on their hands.
如果这真的形成一股风气，那已成立的学术出版社可能面临一场大变革。
A bundle of trouble
麻烦不断
Dr Gowers's immediate gripes are threefold.
Gowers博士的不满可以分为三点。
First, that Elsevier charges too much for its products.
首先，Elsevier的产品要价太高。
Second, that its practice ofbundling journals forces libraries which wish to subscribe to a particular publication to buy it as part of a set that includes several others they may not want.
其次，它将几种刊物捆绑出售，这就让想要订阅其中某种刊物的图书馆不得不将囊括了他们不想要的刊物的系列刊物全买下。
And third, that it supports legislation such as the Research Works Act, a bill now before America's Congress that would forbid the government requiring that free access be given to taxpayer-funded research.
第三，它支持研究工作法等立法，该法案无须通过美国国会，就可以阻止政府为纳税人资助的研究小组提供免费通道。
Elsevier insists it is being misrepresented.
Elsevier坚称自己是被误解了。
The firm is certainly in rude financial health.
无疑该公司的财务状况很强健。
In 2010 it made a 724m profit on revenues of 2 billion, a margin of 36%.
2010年其收入有20亿欧元，热利润只有7.24亿欧元，利润幅度达36%。
But it charges average industry prices for its products, according to Nick Fowler, its director of global academic relations,
然而其全球学术关系部门领导Nick Fowler认为其开价属于行业平均价格，
and its price rises have been lower than those imposed by other publishers over the past few years.
而且过去几年来，其价格涨幅要比其它出版商要低。
Elsevier's enviable margins, Dr Fowler says, are simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation.
Fowler博士称，Elsevier那让人眼红的盈利幅度，只是该公司高效运转的结果。
Dr Neylon's petition, though, is symptomatic of a wider conflict between academics and their publishers—a conflict that is being thrown into sharp relief by the rise of online publishing.
然而，Neylon博士的请愿不过是学术及其出版商之间矛盾扩大化的一种象征——由于网络出版业的崛起，这种矛盾已经得到大大的缓解了。
Academics, who live in a culture which values the free and easy movement of information have long been uncomfortable bedfellows with commercial publishing companies,
学术，能生长于一个重视信息传播的自由性与方便性的文化环境中，同时也是一个愿意无偿编辑和评判文章的事物。
which want to maximise profits by charging for access to that information, and who control many of the most prestigious scientific journals.
但长期以来，学术与商业化出版商就格格不入，后者希望通过向信息获取者收费从而使利润最大化，此外还掌控着大多数最负盛名的科学刊物。
This situation has been simmering for years.
这种局面已经酝酿多年了。
In 2006, for example, the entire editorial board of Topology, a mathematics journal published by Elsevier, resigned,
比如，2006年Elsevier出版一本数学期刊《地志学》时，整个编辑委员会都提出辞呈，
citing similar worries about high prices choking off access.
并对高价掐断信息来源的行为表示类似忧虑。
And the board of K-theory, a maths journal owned by Springer, a German publishing firm, quit in 2007.
而德国某出版公司Springer旗下的一本数学期刊《扭结理论》的编辑委员会也于2007年辞职。
To many, it is surprising things have taken so long to boil over.
酿就一件事花费如此长的时间让很多人大跌眼镜。
Academics were the internet's earliest adopters, with all the possibilities for cutting publishers out of the loop which that offers. And there have indeed been attempts to create alternatives to commercial publishing.
学术界是最早采纳互联网的。却是有人试图为商业出版提供更多选择。
Cornell University's arXiv website was set up in 1991.
康奈尔大学的arXiv网站于1991年成立。
Researchers can upload maths and physics papers that have not been published in journals.
研究员可以上传一些还没在期刊上发表的数学及物理文章。
Thousands are added every day.
每天添加的文章成千上万。
The Public Library of Science was founded in 2000.
公共科学图书馆于2000年成立，
It publishes seven free journals which cover biology and medicine.
它会免费出版7种涵盖生物学和医学的刊文。
But despite the enthusiasm for such operations, there are reasons for the continued dominance of traditional publishers.
然而，尽管人们有热情去做类似事情，但传统出版商主导地位依旧屹立不倒也有其理由。
ArXiv's papers, though subject to merciless post-publication commentary, are not formally peer-reviewed before they are posted.
ArXiv的文章，尽管遭受到出版后的无情抨击，但他们在发表之前并没有接受同行审评。
Their quality is thus rather uneven.
因此其质量相当不平衡。
PLoS relies partly on donations, but also charges publication fees of up to $2,900 per paper.
PloS的部分经济来源于捐赠，但每篇文章也收取高达2900美元的发表费。
These must be paid by the authors, a significant expense for cash-strapped university departments.
这些费用必须由作者承担，对于囊中羞涩的大学部门来说这是笔很大的费用。
And there is also a lingering prejudice against electronic-only publishing.
此外，关于只有电子版的刊物的偏见一直存在。
Web-based alternatives often seem less respectable than their dead-tree counterparts.
通常，相比网络版刊物，人们更尊重那些过时了的纸质版刊物。
That matters, because university departments are rated both by the number of papers they publish and the reputation of the journals those papers appear in.
这至关重要，因为大学部门是以他们所发表的文章数量及其所在刊物的名气程度来评级的。
Youngsters, who might be expected to embrace new ways of doing things, must therefore publish in existing, reputable journals if they want recognition and promotion.
因此，可能接受新方式的青年如果想要得到承认与升迁，就必须在有名气的实体刊物上发表文章。
And the definition ofreputable changes slowly, since journals with the best reputation get the pick of new papers.
由于新报刊能够成为最有名气的报刊，名气的定义也在逐渐改变。
Commercial publishers have begun to experiment with open-access ideas, such as charging authors for publication rather than readers for reading.
商业化出版商已经开始尝试开放式获取理念，比如收费对象从读者转向发表文章的作者。
But if the boycott continues to grow, things could become more urgent.
然而，如果抵制情绪持续增长，问题将变得更为紧迫。
After all, publishers need academics more than academics need publishers.
毕竟，需要学院的出版商多过需要出版商的学院。
And incumbents often look invulnerable until they suddenly fall.
而且往往出版商在倒下的前一刻还看起来坚不可摧。
Beware, then, the Academic spring.
那么，当心学术的春天到了。
