5 ms·

Being published by Elsevier has some "cachet". Maybe they capitalize on that, I'm not sure. Although I had the possibility of publishing with them I turned it

by socmag 10y ago

Being published by Elsevier has some "cachet". Maybe they capitalize on that, I'm not sure. Although I had the possibility of publishing with them I turned it down, only because at the time I was way too busy and already had a deal running with Charles River. But mostly because... way too busy. I guess it depends what you want from a book deal. Any book deals I have been approached for have never been for financial gain. More like, let's get this stuff out in a dignified way. Elsevier seemed to fit the bill. Is like I would go to Taschen for Art stuff. Revenue would not be the driving factor. Again, not saying I agree with some policies.

SubiculumCode 10y ago
In academic book publishing, I tend to agree. These are low profit enterprises. Few copies get sold in all honesty. However, they are major leeches when it comes to journals.
KingMob 10y ago
Maybe they have the cachet of "reasonable competence", but what has cachet are the journals themselves. Books are way less relevant than papers, and their publishers are even less relevant. E.g., nobody cares who publishes Science or Nature.
- socmag 10y ago
  Yes you are probably right. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place in the modern world.
- pmyteh 10y ago
  That depends a lot on the field. At the more philosophical end of my discipline (politics) a good book published by a first-or-second-tier publisher (one of the major university presses, plus the best of the commercial publishers) is a major career progression requirement. In my part (quantitative, mainly methodology) it's all done in journals and monographs are rare. It really does depend.
  - socmag 10y ago
    I get that in academia there is a standard publication path for thought and insight in the form of scientific papers. It's a cool thing. Scientific papers are not everyone's cup of tea though, and somewhat inaccessible (to publish for) for older people or those outside of academia. Surely there is a middle ground between "JavaScript for Dummies", "Studies in Global Illumination" and "Computation on the modular hypersphere" Actually, I'll be frank. Academic papers are designed to be inaccessible. Not all, but the majority. I've read plenty in Comp.Sci, and all I can say is that going out of their way to be obtuse seems like more than a fascination. I think it is called "Job Security" Heck for the longest time, academic papers were behind paywalls that were WAY more inaccessible than Elsevier. So there is that.
    - pmyteh 10y ago
      It's a problem. The incentives are for getting published, not getting read. We are somewhat rewarded for producing accessible content in the form of teaching, but anything popular in writing (even if scholarly and read by millions) just isn't quite recognised. And that deliberate obscurity is a thing, though not a universal one. And that is evil.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
socmag 10y ago
Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public libraries. If Taschen acted like Elsevier, for example they would be suing photographers for having exhibitions featuring reprinted photographs in public museums. This is all of course besides the fact that limiting access to scientific knowledge for the purposes of rent-seeking is morally wrong and IMO should be criminal.
  - socmag 10y ago
    Alright, I'll buy that. The difference between Elsevier and Taschen is that people like us don't appreciate computer science as much as art. We expect to get everything for free online, not something I can hold in my hand. Meanwhile I'd love to own an original copy of an Escher and stick it on my wall. Other people pay good money every month to play world of Warcraft. I'm guessing amortized over time, more than Elsevier charges. What do you want? Free everything, fine. It's available. Original content that someone worked really hard for and has a stupendously limited audience, but is presented with style and panache. There is that too. At this point I don't know what I'm really suggesting. I can't say I like $25 paywalls. That isn't me, and I don't have the pocket change for it either. That said, I do appreciate "known good reliable sources". and am willing to pay a premium. I think "criminal" is probably a bit much. I'd like to understand the economics first. Nobody buys newspapers any more either. $.25c was criminal too, and look where the news is now. I'm thinking.
  - deleted 10y ago

by socmag 10y ago

SubiculumCode 10y ago

In academic book publishing, I tend to agree. These are low profit enterprises. Few copies get sold in all honesty. However, they are major leeches when it comes to journals.

KingMob 10y ago

Maybe they have the cachet of "reasonable competence", but what has cachet are the journals themselves. Books are way less relevant than papers, and their publishers are even less relevant. E.g., nobody cares who publishes Science or Nature.

socmag 10y ago
Yes you are probably right. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place in the modern world.
pmyteh 10y ago
That depends a lot on the field. At the more philosophical end of my discipline (politics) a good book published by a first-or-second-tier publisher (one of the major university presses, plus the best of the commercial publishers) is a major career progression requirement. In my part (quantitative, mainly methodology) it's all done in journals and monographs are rare. It really does depend.
- socmag 10y ago
  I get that in academia there is a standard publication path for thought and insight in the form of scientific papers. It's a cool thing. Scientific papers are not everyone's cup of tea though, and somewhat inaccessible (to publish for) for older people or those outside of academia. Surely there is a middle ground between "JavaScript for Dummies", "Studies in Global Illumination" and "Computation on the modular hypersphere" Actually, I'll be frank. Academic papers are designed to be inaccessible. Not all, but the majority. I've read plenty in Comp.Sci, and all I can say is that going out of their way to be obtuse seems like more than a fascination. I think it is called "Job Security" Heck for the longest time, academic papers were behind paywalls that were WAY more inaccessible than Elsevier. So there is that.
  - pmyteh 10y ago
    It's a problem. The incentives are for getting published, not getting read. We are somewhat rewarded for producing accessible content in the form of teaching, but anything popular in writing (even if scholarly and read by millions) just isn't quite recognised. And that deliberate obscurity is a thing, though not a universal one. And that is evil.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

socmag 10y ago

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

sedachv 10y ago
> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public libraries. If Taschen acted like Elsevier, for example they would be suing photographers for having exhibitions featuring reprinted photographs in public museums. This is all of course besides the fact that limiting access to scientific knowledge for the purposes of rent-seeking is morally wrong and IMO should be criminal.
- socmag 10y ago
  Alright, I'll buy that. The difference between Elsevier and Taschen is that people like us don't appreciate computer science as much as art. We expect to get everything for free online, not something I can hold in my hand. Meanwhile I'd love to own an original copy of an Escher and stick it on my wall. Other people pay good money every month to play world of Warcraft. I'm guessing amortized over time, more than Elsevier charges. What do you want? Free everything, fine. It's available. Original content that someone worked really hard for and has a stupendously limited audience, but is presented with style and panache. There is that too. At this point I don't know what I'm really suggesting. I can't say I like $25 paywalls. That isn't me, and I don't have the pocket change for it either. That said, I do appreciate "known good reliable sources". and am willing to pay a premium. I think "criminal" is probably a bit much. I'd like to understand the economics first. Nobody buys newspapers any more either. $.25c was criminal too, and look where the news is now. I'm thinking.
- deleted 10y ago