MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

MIT’s decision to drop its “big deal” subscription with publishing giant Elsevier is being framed as both a cost-saving move and a push toward open access to publicly funded research. Commenters debate what real value traditional publishers add in an era of arXiv, preprints, and institutional repositories, pointing to prestige, career incentives, and curation as the main remaining levers of power. Many argue that universities, funders, and governments could collectively dismantle paywalled journal cartels by enforcing open-access mandates and changing how academic output is evaluated.

Emotional and historical context

  • Many connect MIT’s stance to the legacy of a well-known open‑access activist prosecuted after bulk‑downloading articles; some see this move as “better late than never,” others as hypocritical given how harshly individuals were treated compared to large corporations.
  • The shift is framed as part of a long arc: from early online access wins, through decades of publisher dominance and rent‑seeking, toward gradual open‑access progress.

Elsevier’s value proposition and criticisms

  • Claimed value: prestige of journal brands, curation/peer review, copy‑editing/typesetting, long‑term access, and convenient institutional bundles.
  • Strong criticism: described repeatedly as a cartel, parasite, and rent‑seeker extracting public money for publicly funded research, with authors, reviewers, and many editors unpaid.
  • Some argue that article typesetting is often worse than author‑produced LaTeX; others say professional editing and stable access are still nontrivial costs.

MIT’s decision, costs, and access mechanisms

  • MIT ended its “big deal,” now paying per‑article via Article Galaxy, saving roughly $2M/year and spending about $300k on per‑article fees.
  • Backfile access to pre‑2020 content remains; new content is obtained ad hoc.
  • Some doubt publishers will shut down intermediaries like Article Galaxy because they generate revenue; others expect pricing pressure or restrictions over time.

Negotiation strategy and institutional principles

  • MIT’s framework for publisher contracts emphasizes: no forced copyright transfer; compatibility with open‑access policies; automatic repository deposit; computational (non‑consumptive) text/data mining; preservation; and transparent, cost‑based pricing.
  • Commenters praise sticking to principles rather than haggling details; negotiators debate whether “principles” are genuine constraints or just tactics.

Open access, alternatives, and incentives

  • arXiv, PLOS, institutional repositories, and law‑school‑style student‑run journals are discussed as alternatives; distinction is drawn between preprint servers and peer‑reviewed journals.
  • Many see journal curation as separable from access and copyright ownership.
  • A key obstacle: academic careers and funding are still tightly coupled to prestige journals and impact‑factor culture, which keeps the oligopoly powerful.

Legal and policy angles

  • Proposals include: government mandates that publicly funded research be openly available; state‑level rules (e.g., for California); and stronger antitrust enforcement.
  • Debate over constitutional limits on retroactively voiding contracts; some note that many government funders already require some form of open access.

Access workarounds and real‑world practice

  • Sci‑Hub, z‑library, Anna’s Archive, ResearchGate, alumni/public‑library access, and direct author requests are widely used; this likely softened the impact of cancellations.
  • Experiences differ: some researchers report serious friction when large systems (like UC) briefly lost big‑deal access; others say delays and inconvenience, but not catastrophe.