UCLA may not have the power to walk away completely by itself. Outside research grants depend on publications in top journals and a single university still need those names.
What if bigger entities negotiate together? European nations, NIH, NSF, major foundations and UC system can propose creating top journals to compete with Elsevier. Or direct their grant recipients to publish in alternative open access journals.
Funders hold research money and universities grant prestige and job security. Elsevier is a big gatekeeper for both. If funders and universities work together, they can topple the status quo.
What are drawbacks to their careers from agreeing not to review? I understand that reviewing is really a community service and done without tangible or much intengible compensation. And reviewing is anonymous. For tenured professors, there should be few problems and Elsevier probably wont retaliate, or will they?
What are reasons for the controversay besides academic freedom?
Honestly nothing really. It’s more that there are papers that I am often the best person to review them (because of particular expertise). I often just don’t pay attention to where it’s coming from.
What if bigger entities negotiate together? European nations, NIH, NSF, major foundations and UC system can propose creating top journals to compete with Elsevier. Or direct their grant recipients to publish in alternative open access journals.
Funders hold research money and universities grant prestige and job security. Elsevier is a big gatekeeper for both. If funders and universities work together, they can topple the status quo.