It is a very nice article. But it conflates several issues, and has some serious distortions.
High profits at Elsevier (as well as at other publishers, including quite a few non-profit professional societies) are one issue. But it has only tenuous relation to another one raised in the article, namely how the scholarly publishing enterprise distorts science. The latter is due primarily to the increasing competitiveness and general sociology of science. Even if Elsevier gave away its journals, that would not change. There is a slew of publications on the problems with with current system, and just one example is the paper of Vinkers et al. in Br. Med. J. in 2015, "Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis," www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467 with a popular writeup by Philip Ball in Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/novel-amazing-innovative-positive-words-on-the-rise-in-science-papers-1.19024 If one reads the Buranyi article carefully, one gets some glimpses of the positive effects that Maxwell had on scholarly publishing. He did recognize the rapid expansion of the research establishment, and in particular the rise of new fields, fields that traditional professional societies were neglecting. I have not heard of any cases where he tried to influence the scientific content of his journals (say, by suppressing articles about dangers of tobacco, or of pollution). So yes, the high prices and high profits that he extracted were regrettable. But he just exploited the opportunities that traditional scholarly publishers had left open. Andrew Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > I'd like to publicly commend Stephen Buranyi for this article. He spent a > *lot*of time on it, and spent a whole day with me getting a historical and > current perspective. Originally I think he hoped to give pointers for the > future, but the story (rightly) mutated itself into Maxwell , which is > exactly where it should be. Not enough people realise that it was > effectively Maxwell who has corrupted the scholarly publishing system and > this is an excellent and timely reminder of the initial causes. > > P. > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Donald Samulack - Editage < > donald.samul...@editage.com> wrote: > > > I ask that the industry consider whether or not SciHub activities could > > possibly be the work of one individual residing in Russia, or whether there > > is something more malicious taking place instead. > > > > > > > > I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it makes sense to me (and I have not > > heard any serious argument otherwise) in light of recent Russian attempts > > to alter the course of the US election (and others), that if Russia > > *really* wanted to get into the computers of every research lab and > > academic institution around the world, there would be no better way to do > > it than to give away free research articles. Please think about this… a > > cover for a phishing exercise targeting every atomic energy facility, > > WHO-sponsored lab, CDC facilities, government and state labs around the > > world, leading academic institutions housing the world’s cutting edge > > intellectual property, etc. > > > > > > > > The computing and article collating power that this single person would > > need to have at her disposal to be able to have the IP change every 10 > > minutes (as I understand it), archive and mirror the collections, etc. may > > not be the resources and activities of a single person. We need to consider > > this possibility in this new world we live in, and also consider the > > consequences of not taking steps to shut down such potentially corrupt > > intent, if in fact such intent is ongoing. > > > > > > > > Donald Samulack > > > > (Speaking as a concerned citizen) > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > > Behalf Of *Heather Morrison > > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:08 PM > > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of > > scientific publishing bad for science? > > > > > > > > Indeed, great article. Building on this, a reflection: whatever one thinks > > of the ethics and legality of Elsevier's lawsuit against SciHub > > founder Alexandra Elbakyan, it appears to me that she has demonstrated that > > a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide the bulk of the important > > services contributed by Elsevier (hosting and serving up articles) at no > > cost to users, and apparently off the side of her desk. If this is correct, > > this says something about the real necessary marginal cost for providing > > this service, i.e. almost nothing. > > > > > > > > Considering that academics do the real work of academic publishing - > > writing and peer review - if the traditional value add of publishers in > > storing and disseminating articles, necessary in the print and early > > electronic ages, can now be done for next to nothing, surely we can devise > > a new system that retains or strengthens quality at a fraction of the cost? > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Heather Morrison > > Associate Professor > > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies > > University of Ottawa > > > > Desmarais 111-02 > > > > 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 <(613)%20562-5800> > > > > Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship > > > > http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ > > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html > > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > > > > > > > On 2017-06-27, at 11:38 AM, "Reckling, Falk" <falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Indeed Eric, astonishingbackground story, almost all what you have to know > > about the publishing industry and very well written, > > > > > > > > Best Falk > > > > > > > > Von: Éric Archambault<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com > > <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26 > > An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<mailto:goal@eprints.org > > <goal@eprints.org>> > > Betreff: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific > > publishing bad for science? > > > > > > > > Interesting article in the Guardian that spells out the role played by > > Robert Maxwell in the development of the scholarly journal industry. > > > > Éric > > > > > > Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for > > science? > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business- > > scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > > > > > Eric Archambault > > 1science.com > > Science-Metrix.com > > +1-514-495-6505 x111 <(514)%20495-6505> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL@eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL@eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL@eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal