kicking off, from the CVnet discussion (not posting others' posts in case they'd prefer they not be here)

[Alex Holcombe]

I share Nick's concerns, especially about Elsevier. Aside from the
high profits they make on the backs of our free labor and our
universities' and governments' payments of their exorbitant
subscription fees (http://bit.ly/w0ELAn), they have long run an
ethically questionable business, ranging from sponsorship of
international arms fairs (http://bit.ly/z4RHwi) to the creation of
fake journals for pharmaceutical companies to promote their wares
(http://bit.ly/A5bIHd).

Vince makes the point that Vision Research is a venerable institution
that has been critical to our field. That's true, but there is no
reason it needs to be published by Elsevier. Elsevier may own the
title, but we scientists *are* essentially the journal. I'd like to
see the editorial board of Vision Research (and Experimental Brain
Research, one of the most expensive journals in the world at $13670/
yr) resign en masse and start a new journal with a publisher that is
more ethical and less expensive. There are several precedents for
such action (http://bit.ly/xKzqvJ) which provide examples of how this
can be done. Elsevier's title would then wither or collapse. Open
access is perhaps a longer-term goal, and one more difficult to
achieve, but something we can strive for more effectively with another
publisher.

I have put in to organize a satellite event at VSS to discuss these
issues among others. The event might be called something like "Open
Access, Open Science, and Publishing: What role for Vision
Scientists?". Assuming it is successfully scheduled, I hope people
will try to make it. Please contact me if you have questions or would
like to present something.