{"id":128,"date":"2009-06-01T10:01:52","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T15:01:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/06\/01\/elsevier-journals\/"},"modified":"2009-06-01T10:02:39","modified_gmt":"2009-06-01T15:02:39","slug":"elsevier-journals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/06\/01\/elsevier-journals\/","title":{"rendered":"Elsevier journals"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A number of scientists I know refuse to deal with journals published by the publisher Reed Elsevier, for a couple of different reasons.\u00a0 First, they&#8217;re <a href=\"http:\/\/math.ucr.edu\/home\/baez\/journals.html\">ridiculously expensive<\/a>, and Elsevier sometimes adopts pricing schemes where libraries have to purchase large <a href=\"http:\/\/www.news.cornell.edu\/Chronicle\/03\/12.11.03\/CUL_Elsevier.html\">bundles<\/a> of journals rather than just the ones they want.\u00a0 As <a href=\"http:\/\/math.ucr.edu\/home\/baez\/journals.html\">John Baez<\/a> put it a while ago,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>There is really <em>no reason<\/em> for us to <em>donate<\/em> our work [i.e. authorship and refereeing] to profit-making corporations who  <em>sell it back to us<\/em> at exorbitant prices!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The second reason some academics were boycotting Elsevier is that the company had a sideline <a href=\"http:\/\/cage.ugent.be\/~npg\/elsevier\/\">sponsoring international arms fairs<\/a>, a business which many people find repugnant.\u00a0 That&#8217;s no longer a reason to shun the company, though: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/media\/2007\/jun\/01\/citynews.business1\">they&#8217;re out of that line of work<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>All of the above is at least a couple of years old.\u00a0 But here&#8217;s a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.the-scientist.com\/templates\/trackable\/display\/blog.jsp?type=blog&amp;o_url=blog\/display\/55679&amp;id=55679\">new reason <\/a>not to like the company: for about five years, they published at least six fake journals.\u00a0 These were made to look like peer-reviewed scientific journals, but they weren&#8217;t.\u00a0 At least one was owned and operated by Merck, and published only articles promoting Merck&#8217;s interests.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.libraryjournal.com\/article\/CA6658357.html\">librarians and others don&#8217;t like this. <\/a><\/p>\n<p>Oh, and by the way, the company also ran New Scientist, which used to be a good pop-science magazine, i<a href=\"http:\/\/golem.ph.utexas.edu\/category\/2006\/09\/a_plea_to_save_new_scientist.html\">nto the ground<\/a>.\u00a0 Less important than some other considerations, but still annoying.<\/p>\n<p>Should there be an organized boycott over something like this fake-journal scandal?\u00a0 I don&#8217;t really know.\u00a0 But I do know that I have a choice when donating my labor to journals, and I&#8217;m fully entitled to take this sort of practice into account when making that choice.\u00a0 Other things being equal, I&#8217;m certainly going to steer clear of this company.\u00a0 If there were an occasion in which publishing in an Elsevier journal was far better than any other option for some reason, I&#8217;d have to decide how to weigh the various factors.\u00a0 Fortunately, for me that pretty much never arises: the main journals it makes sense for me to publish in are published by professional societies.\u00a0 They&#8217;re reasonably priced (compared to other scientific journals) and as far as I know are free from this sort of corruption.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A number of scientists I know refuse to deal with journals published by the publisher Reed Elsevier, for a couple of different reasons.\u00a0 First, they&#8217;re ridiculously expensive, and Elsevier sometimes adopts pricing schemes where libraries have to purchase large bundles of journals rather than just the ones they want.\u00a0 As John Baez put it a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/06\/01\/elsevier-journals\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Elsevier journals<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}