Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

In LEARNED PUBLISHING. VOL . 1 5, N O. 4, OCTOBER 200 2, Brian Cox,
writing about Maxwell, offers the following story:
"In 1951, when Pergamon was founded, the US dollar had already replaced
sterling as the world currency and until the 1980s remained the
benchmark against which all other currencies were measured. Costs and
subscription rates grew as journals grew in size and
frequency, but were incurred in pounds during many years when the pound
fell in value against the dollar – a fact not immediately apparent to
librarians in the United States, who were pleased with Pergamon’s
apparently stable prices. The exchange illusion was a major factor in
Pergamon’s profitability." (p. 276).
Cox continues "When, after 40 years, the US dollar ceased to be the
benchmark for world currency, and the true costs and prices of STM
journals became apparent, Pergamon and other European journal
publishers fell abruptly in the esteem of the US library
market."
Between 1975 and 1985, the exchange rate between £ and $ started around
2.4£/$ to drop at 1.75 £/$ in early 1977 to climb back to nearly 2.5
around 1983 finally to decline slightly above par in early 1985.
(See https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-
spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-USD)
Likewise, the exchange rate between the Guilder and the dollar went
from 0.3957 in 1975 to 0.3024 in 1985 with a peak of 0.5033 in 1980.
There again, fluctuations went both ways.
(http://www.historicalstatistics.org/Currencyconverter.html)
The fluctuations in the exchange rate militate against the argument
that exchange rates consistently worked against (or for) US buyers.
What is more probable is that European commercial publishers, at least
some of them some of the time, used the dollar value when the European
currencies went down, thus creating the illusion of stability in their
prices (but increased profits in European currencies). When the dollar
decreased in value, they simply applied the current exchange rate. In
other words, they manipulated exchange rates to their advantage.
Cox, an employee of maxwell, obviously thought this was a nifty trick!
Too bad for ethics.
If this hypothesis can be documented, it may be another good example of
how commercial publishers view libraries and their budgets. Has anyone
kept old accounting records?
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le samedi 08 juillet 2017 à 12:32 -0700, Dana Roth a écrit :
> Very interesting article, although the author missed a couple of
> points ... namely that 
> 
> 1.Maxwell was very clever in providing 'personal subscriptions' to
> scientists at subscribing institutions at less than the cost of
> mailing.
> 
> 2. The 10% increase in price for Brain Research from 1975 to 1985 was
> due both to a 50% increase in the number of articles (1000 to 1500)
> but also to exchange rate changes.  The value of the US$ vs Dutch
> Guilder underwent some major fluctuations in those years.
> 
> 3.  Problems with exchange rate profiteering came later.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:35 AM,  wrote:
> > Interesting, especially nostalgic. However, a good start re
> > Elsevier became the story of Maxwell. Pity
> > 
> > > 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-busine
> > > ss-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Eric Archambault
> > > 1science.com
> > > Science-Metrix.com
> > > +1-514-495-6505 x111
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Dana Roth]

Very interesting article, although the author missed a couple of points ...
namely that

1.Maxwell was very clever in providing 'personal subscriptions' to
scientists at subscribing institutions at less than the cost of mailing.

2. The 10% increase in price for Brain Research from 1975 to 1985 was due
both to a 50% increase in the number of articles (1000 to 1500) but also to
exchange rate changes.  The value of the US$ vs Dutch Guilder underwent
some major fluctuations in those years.

3.  Problems with exchange rate profiteering came later.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:35 AM,  wrote:

> Interesting, especially nostalgic. However, a good start re Elsevier
> became the story of Maxwell. Pity
>
> On June 27, 2017 8:22:08 AM GMT+01:00, "Éric Archambault" <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 

Dana L. Roth

dzr...@library.caltech.edu

Special Projects Librarian

Caltech  1-32

1200 E. California Blvd.

Pasadena, CA 91125

626-395-6423
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[barry . mahon]

None of this is new. All the studies, one way or the other, show that 
commercial publishers are​ making, depending on one's point of view, or the 
size of your pay check ;), profits.

The alternative to the particular case of our friends from the Netherlands is 
setting up an equal or better publishing method, producing the same effect for 
the writer, i.e. recognition. Our late lamented friend from the world of 
citations was never happy that his simplified mathematical device was being 
used as a method of measuring effectiveness, so, in devising a new, 
alternative, methodology we should be looking for better measurement tools. 

Anyone here like to propose a solution or solutions? Bearing in mind the need 
for "recognition"? 

On June 28, 2017 4:24:21 PM GMT+01:00, Stevan Harnad  
wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko  wrote:
>
>we could operate an adequate scholarly publishing business, with the
>> current level of peer review, at $300 per article, or 10% what it
>costs
>> Elsevier.  The main obstacle is inertia.
>
>
>"I think that the true figure for peer-review implementation alone
>across all refereed journals probably averages closer to $200 per
>article,
>or even lower. Hence, quality-control costs account for only 10% of the
>collective tolls actually being paid per article.”
>
>*Nature* *410*, 1024-1025 (*26 April 2001*) | doi:10.1038/35074210
>
>https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101024a0.html
>
>
>Inertia indeed, on the part of the publishing industry, predictably,
>but on
>the part of the research community, deplorably…
>
>*Stevan Harnad*
>
>On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko 
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide simple
>distribution
>> of files at a very low cost.  But once you get into providing
>anything
>> resembling serious curation, and even more when you get into peer
>review,
>> costs do mount up.  For example, arXiv costs about $10 per preprint
>> submitted (if we divide the annual cost of the arXiv by the number of
>> new submissions, and so don't worry about the accounting niceties of
>> splitting the costs between handling new and old papers).  For a few
>> million papers per year for all of scholarly publishing, this gets
>> beyond the capability of a Kazhakstani graduate student.
>>
>>
>> This rough estimate of $10 per preprint for arXiv, and others to be
>quoted,
>> are all from the paper "Open Access, library and publisher
>competition, and
>> the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 39, no.
>1,
>> Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,
>>
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751
>>
>> and (for those who can't get inside the paywall), a preprint is at
>>
>> http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf
>>
>> Going beyond preprint distribution (and the very light level of
>screening
>> by volunteer editors, which does exist at arXiv, at no monetary
>cost),
>> Elsevier collects about $5,000 in total on average for each article
>they
>> publish.  About $2,000 is their profit, and the remaining $3,000
>covers
>> what they claim are necessary costs.  As many (including your truly)
>have
>> been arguing for a couple of decades, the necessity of those costs
>(leaving
>> the profit question aside) is extremely questionable, and we now have
>lots
>> of examples of lower cost journals.  It seems clear (some estimates
>and
>> references in the paper cited above) that we could operate an
>adequate
>> scholarly publishing business, with the current level of peer review,
>> at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs Elsevier.  The main
>obstacle
>> is inertia.
>>
>> Andrew
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko  wrote:

we could operate an adequate scholarly publishing business, with the
> current level of peer review, at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs
> Elsevier.  The main obstacle is inertia.


"I think that the true figure for peer-review implementation alone
across all refereed journals probably averages closer to $200 per article,
or even lower. Hence, quality-control costs account for only 10% of the
collective tolls actually being paid per article.”

*Nature* *410*, 1024-1025 (*26 April 2001*) | doi:10.1038/35074210

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101024a0.html


Inertia indeed, on the part of the publishing industry, predictably, but on
the part of the research community, deplorably…

*Stevan Harnad*

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko  wrote:

> Perhaps a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide simple distribution
> of files at a very low cost.  But once you get into providing anything
> resembling serious curation, and even more when you get into peer review,
> costs do mount up.  For example, arXiv costs about $10 per preprint
> submitted (if we divide the annual cost of the arXiv by the number of
> new submissions, and so don't worry about the accounting niceties of
> splitting the costs between handling new and old papers).  For a few
> million papers per year for all of scholarly publishing, this gets
> beyond the capability of a Kazhakstani graduate student.
>
>
> This rough estimate of $10 per preprint for arXiv, and others to be quoted,
> are all from the paper "Open Access, library and publisher competition, and
> the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 39, no. 1,
> Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751
>
> and (for those who can't get inside the paywall), a preprint is at
>
> http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf
>
> Going beyond preprint distribution (and the very light level of screening
> by volunteer editors, which does exist at arXiv, at no monetary cost),
> Elsevier collects about $5,000 in total on average for each article they
> publish.  About $2,000 is their profit, and the remaining $3,000 covers
> what they claim are necessary costs.  As many (including your truly) have
> been arguing for a couple of decades, the necessity of those costs (leaving
> the profit question aside) is extremely questionable, and we now have lots
> of examples of lower cost journals.  It seems clear (some estimates and
> references in the paper cited above) that we could operate an adequate
> scholarly publishing business, with the current level of peer review,
> at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs Elsevier.  The main obstacle
> is inertia.
>
> Andrew
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Andrew Odlyzko]

Perhaps a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide simple distribution
of files at a very low cost.  But once you get into providing anything
resembling serious curation, and even more when you get into peer review,
costs do mount up.  For example, arXiv costs about $10 per preprint
submitted (if we divide the annual cost of the arXiv by the number of
new submissions, and so don't worry about the accounting niceties of
splitting the costs between handling new and old papers).  For a few
million papers per year for all of scholarly publishing, this gets
beyond the capability of a Kazhakstani graduate student.


This rough estimate of $10 per preprint for arXiv, and others to be quoted, 
are all from the paper "Open Access, library and publisher competition, and 
the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 
Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751

and (for those who can't get inside the paywall), a preprint is at
 
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf

Going beyond preprint distribution (and the very light level of screening
by volunteer editors, which does exist at arXiv, at no monetary cost),
Elsevier collects about $5,000 in total on average for each article they
publish.  About $2,000 is their profit, and the remaining $3,000 covers 
what they claim are necessary costs.  As many (including your truly) have 
been arguing for a couple of decades, the necessity of those costs (leaving
the profit question aside) is extremely questionable, and we now have lots 
of examples of lower cost journals.  It seems clear (some estimates and 
references in the paper cited above) that we could operate an adequate
scholarly publishing business, with the current level of peer review, 
at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs Elsevier.  The main obstacle 
is inertia.

Andrew





Heather Morrison  wrote:

> 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
> 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" 
> >
>  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
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> 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
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Andrew Odlyzko]

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  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 

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[barry . mahon]

Seems to me that the Russian thing is a(nother) manifestation of the need to 
deal with the broader issues. As the article implied, scientific publishing is 
a unique, peculiar, process. Over the years it has moved from a societal 
activity, supported by professional participants, for their professional needs, 
to an economic activity, progressively owned by fewer and fewer  participants. 
This concentration, supported by massive changes in the technological 
environment, has, inevitably, led to various circumventions, mostly technically 
illegal. 

Despite strong movements to replace the processes by more equitable means of 
information dissemination, the legal basis is unchanged. An individual who 
wishes to have their results well distributed can make a choice. That choice 
has consequences. 

There it lies, we may try to change the law, an unlikely international 
procedure. We can defy the law, leading to inevitable prosecution, if the 
commercial processes are affected. Or, we can live with what we have.

For me, the last option is the best we can expect.

On June 27, 2017 7:12:18 PM GMT+01:00, Donald Samulack - Editage 
 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
>
>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" 
>
> 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
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
>An: Global Open Access List (Successor of
>AmSci)
>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 

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Guédon Jean-Claude]

I can fully support Peter's assessment of Buranyi's article. He and I spent a 
fair bit of time over the telephone and exchanged quite a few e-mails while he 
was preparing this article. The story clearly mutated as the title indicates 
because he was originally seeking other kinds of information, more in line with 
the title, but his piece on Maxwell is first rate. 

I had begun to dig a little into this in earlier pieces of mine, but he has 
gone much, much further. I learned quite a bit reading it. One should never 
forget that Maxwell sued Garfield on copyright infringement grounds in order to 
pry the Science Citation Index away from him. That failed, but the idea of 
owning both journals and the means to "assess" them - quotation marks highly 
needed here to express skepticism over the whole process - was not forgotten 
and Elsevier has been trying to create this kind of system with Scopus.

Nil novi sub sole!

Jean-Claude Guédon

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Peter 
Murray-Rust [pm...@cam.ac.uk]
Envoyé : mardi 27 juin 2017 18:16
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific 
publishing bad for science?

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 
> 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
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Donald Samulack - Editage]

http://www.stm-publishing.com/the-association-of-american-publishers-welcome
s-major-judgment-against-sci-hub-pirate-site/

 

On June 21st, in the case of Elsevier vs. Sci-Hub, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of
Elsevier to the tune of $15 million.

 

This will be a game changer! Congratulations to Elsevier for stepping
forward to hold Sci-Hub accountable to sweeping copyright infringement,
hijacking of proxy credentials, and associated misconduct.

 

This puts another twist on the story which was the root of this string. Ask
yourself who else would have had the ability to stand up to such a blatantly
corrupt activity to take a stand, draw a line in the sand, and curb such
gross copyright infringement? I wonder how close Google will be looking at
this ruling? You just cannot scrub people’s intellectual property and
broadcast it, even though there is a “wanting” audience to consume it.

 

 

Donald Samulack

(Speaking as a concerned citizen)

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Donald Samulack - Editage
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:12 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific
publishing bad for science?

 

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

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" 

 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
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
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 

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

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" 
>
>  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 >
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >
> 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
>
> 

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Donald Samulack - Editage]

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

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" 

 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
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
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-scientif
ic-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

___
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

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Heather Morrison]

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
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" 
>
 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
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
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

___
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

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Reckling, Falk]

Indeed Eric, astonishingbackground story, almost all what you have to know 
about the publishing industry and very well written,



Best Falk



Von: Éric Archambault
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
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

___
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

Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[barry . mahon]

Interesting, especially nostalgic. However, a good start re Elsevier became the 
story of Maxwell. Pity

On June 27, 2017 8:22:08 AM GMT+01:00, "Éric Archambault" 
 wrote:
>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
>
>___
>GOAL mailing list
>GOAL@eprints.org
>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal