4 ms·
It goes to funding distribution models that can't deliver unicorns, rainbows, OR puppies to your doorstep. See the following quote from William Gunn, Communicat
by ethanwillis 8y ago
It goes to funding distribution models that can't deliver unicorns, rainbows, OR puppies to your doorstep. See the following quote from William Gunn, Communications head at Elsevier.
When one user argued that people in rare-disease
families “shouldn’t have to jump through additional
hoops to access information,” Gunn responded, “Yes,
everyone should have rainbows, unicorns, & puppies
delivered to their doorstep by volunteers. Y’all keep
wishing for that, I’ll keep working on producing the
best knowledge and distributing it as best we can.”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/who-gets-to-read-the-research-taxpayers-fund.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/who-gets-to-read-the-re...
- swebs 8y agoI know it seems superficial, but the usage of the word "y'all" makes Elsevier lose a lot of credibility in my mind.
- freeone3000 8y agoRight, but we have the internet now. The costs of publication and journal subscription greatly exceed the costs of digital distribution.
- consp 8y agoElsevier's profit was almost a billion pounds in 2017. They are the last people to complain about margins or cost/benefits.
- rocqua 8y agoThey post a profit or about 33% according to others in this thread. This means they still have ~2 billion pounds in actual operating costs. Not that I support the current model, but that work still needs to be done, and it seems naive to expect it to be done for free / substantially less. I wonder how far the 'fee per published article' gets to covering bare costs for e.g. the journal Nature.
- consp 8y agoI highly doubt most of the operating costs come from the journals. Considering there are far more people working for other publications in the Elsevier company. Usually the publications with high turnaround have low profit or break even, and I do not think the journals are among those and actually raise the profit margin substantially. But then, I can't back this up with numbers as they do not publish specifics...
- zentiggr 8y agoI would have a very hard time not looking him dead in the eye, saying "F* you", and spitting in his coffee. When "best we can" obviously means "best (for us as) we can (scam the marks for)", you are a parasite.
- dwheeler 8y agoElsevier is full of nonsense, and this self-serving quote from William Gunn is just another example. You might find this article of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-b... Per that article: "According to its 2013 financials Elsevier had a higher percentage of profit than Apple, Inc." There's no need to "distribute by volunteers". We have something called the Internet - put the articles on a website, click, and you're done. Indeed, for the most part publishing on paper is a mistake - what we need is the electrons, not paper. Editors aren't free, but they don't cost the money that Elsevier and others charge. Reviews are done by volunteers, almost without exception, so there's no need to pay publishers for review. For-profit scientific publishers provided an important service in the 1950s. It's not the 1950s any more, and they don't provide any valuable services any more. All the real services - namely the scientific work - are paid by others, and so those others should reap the rewards.
- buboard 8y ago> on producing the best knowledge at best he s publishing it