What are some examples of negative effects on a career for boycotting Elsevier journals?

Question

I fully support the Elsevier boycott, and came from mathematics (BS and MS) into my current PhD program in an engineering subdiscipline. I'm finishing up my PhD now and starting a post-doc soon.

I've already refused to review an article a few years ago for an Elsevier journal, and the editor seemed quite angry about it.

Once again I have been asked to review an article for an Elsevier journal, only this time the journal editorial board has a prominent researcher who I have had personal contact with, is a recently retired Emeritus Professor from my department, and if he became angry about my refusal he could potentially harm my career.

Does anyone have any specific examples of, or even better statistical data showing that boycotts of Elsevier journals had negative career impacts on early career/junior scientists?

Answer 1

People decline to serve as editors or reviewers for all sorts of reasons. "Too busy" and "conflict of interest" are two common ones that are easily applicable to your case.

All junior faculty have too much on their plate and no one knows what your chair or mentor has told you that you need to focus on. So "unavailable/too busy to take this on" is an unprovable and thus good excuse. It's also impossible to know who you've had a fling or a spat with and so "conflict of interest" (and you don't have to give the reason for a CoI or for why you're unavailable) is perhaps less apt in this situation but also a valid excuse.

Example: These are the three options I was given when I received my last reviewer assignment email. If I clicked on decline due to COI or unavailable, I'd be taken to a webform that asked me for alternate reviewer names, but that was entirely optional on my part. I would not be asked for a reason or justification for my response.

As to negative effects, I think it's fine to have principles, but when you're junior faculty, you're also vulnerable. You can choose not to buy products made in China (for example) or to decline to provide free work to Elsevier, but you also don't have to tell any and everyone that you've made that decision for yourself. It's fine to decline with a vague reason if that will protect you from the possibility of retribution.

When you are in a position where you can speak your mind without fear of retribution(which is what tenure is designed to ensure), then do so.

_{As an aside: Especially in well-established journals, editors and editorial boards tend be composed of people known for their expertise as well as their dedication to the field of study. These people also tend to be very, very busy. Your response to the 'board' will likely be entered by a junior editorial assistant and it's highly unlikely that the editorial board will even get involved -- except perhaps to solicit names of other reviewers. Quite simply, it's too small of an issue and people are far too busy to get worked up over this. While I've heard of editors being angry at junior scholars for not publishing in their venues, I've never heard of anyone being angry because someone didn't serve as an article reviewer. A declination then is risk-free. But going out of your way to declare "I'm not reviewing because of my political position against ____" is making a statement (which is what you want, right?) and thus carries the risk that that statement is offensive to some.}

Answer 2

well it depends on your situation. Consider the following, suppose journals are categorized into A*, A, B, C. Your prospects for pay and promotion are directly affected by how many papers you publish in A* and to a lesser extent A.

Now suppose the only journal sympathetic to work in your field that is A* is published by Elsevier. If you refuse to have anything to do with the journal you are harming your career prospects.

This situation is real in Australia.

As regards not refereeing a paper, lots of people refuse refereeing requests all the time for all sorts of reasons. You can just say "no" without giving a reason or you say you are overworked at the moment which is almost certainly true given that you are a maths postdoc.

Answer 3

There's a song I like from a famous French songwriter called Georges Brassens. The title is (roughly translated): "To die for your ideas". He argues that he's alright with it, as long as it's from a slow death. One of his concerns is that these ideas might become obsolete the day after he'd die.

To your question: if the most prestigious journals in your field are published by Elsevier and, say, you produce work worthy of these journals but yet you choose to publish in less reputable journals for political reasons you're obviously taking the risk to diminish your chances at future employment applications, grant money attribution, etc.

I'll give a practical example: say your field is inner-ear physiology and you refuse to review and publish in Hearing Research, JARO or Nature Medicine, because these are commercial publishers, you will not be part of the community who publishes in the field, your papers will be unnoticed and your chances of getting an academic position will tend towards zero.

Now, if the good journals are not published by that commercial publisher you dislike (which I think is the case in many mathematics fields), then it's pretty much irrelevant. If anything, you're annoying editors who have to find other (maybe less capable) reviewers. In your specific case, it might be perceived negatively by your senior colleague that you let politics go in the way of your "duty" to the scientific community as a reviewer, but I doubt that this would ruin your career by itself.

Publish in the reputable journals that your colleagues respect and read, upload preprints for subscription journals.