10 ms·

> The prices of scientific journals now are so high that not a single university in the U.S. — not the University of California, not Harvard, no institution — c

by gist 8y ago

> The prices of scientific journals now are so high that not a single university in the U.S. — not the University of California, not Harvard, no institution — can afford to subscribe to them all,” said Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, university librarian and economics professor at UC Berkeley What is the definition of 'afford'? Obviously Harvard (as only one example) with a huge billion dollar endowment can easily pay for the journals that are relevant. They just choose not to and think they don't receive value for what they pay. But they do spend money on many other things that some people would find to be wasteful and plenty of people and companies make money off those institutions. I am sure their employees are very well paid. I don't know why people have this tendency to freak out when a for profit company like Elsvier tries to make money. It's not like the 'non profit' colleges are some charity case they pay out plenty of money to various entities and people (for example I am sure they have enormous legal expenses as only one example) when they choose to do so.

natechols 8y ago
The problem is that they're making money off content they didn't produce, that taxpayers paid for in many cases, and they're actually preventing wide dissemination of research results. It's not like they're particularly good at their job either - I have yet to meet a scientist who actually enjoys interacting with journal publishers. They simply don't have a choice if they want to stay in an academic position.
- gist 8y ago
  That is called capitalism. By the way there are plenty of people that are making money off of what the government funded which of course was the arpanet and the internet.
yesenadam 8y ago
>"I don't know why people have this tendency to freak out when a for profit company like Elsvier tries to make money." That's an interesting sentence, the way you've framed that. People objecting are objecting to capitalism...and the whole natural order. "Elsevier is..just trying to do what it was created for, like a bird singing or the sun rising or a baby smiling, why is that such a problem? People are just freaking out! I don't know why."
- chlvsl 8y ago
  It's actually an anti-statist pushback. Elsevier no longer represents the interests of the community at large. Academic professionals interact with them only when it's absolutely necessary, NOT because they add any value. Literally an artificial monopoly. New technology such as the web has allowed us to remove the need for this middle man of distribution.
- gist 8y ago
  Yes they freak out because it's not money going into their pocket but someone elses. And they don't think it's fair. You get a similar outrage for a different reason against the last mile and cable companies. Why should they control the 'final mile'. Why can't everyone have access to the lines which they dug? Why? Because they got there first and spent the money to gamble when there was no guarantee of success which is obvious now. That is capitalism and business.
msla 8y ago
If a for-profit company can't market itself effectively, it is going to die. Elsvier is the textbook example of a company that hasn't marketed itself effectively, unless you consider "WE ARE MONOPOLY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!" to be a marketing strategy. Well, the monopoly is over. Nature is taking its course. Think of it as evolution in action.
Vinnl 8y ago
> I don't know why people have this tendency to freak out when a for profit company like Elsvier tries to make money. That's not the problem. Elsevier and its kind haven't just "made money", they've consistently (i.e. for over two decades) made around 40% profits year-over-year. Those margins are on the high end for luxury brands like Apple. However, when we're publicly funding science, we're not funding it as a luxury product - quite the opposite, in fact: we want the results to be a commodity. It's just that Elsevier and its kind have been put in a position where they've been able to obtain something resembling a monopoly, and that just so happens to be in an area where that allows them to lay their hands on a disproportionately large share of money that's earmarked for eye-catching things like cancer research. Sure, it might not be that justified to be angry at Elsevier for doing what's the only logical thing to do, in their position, but it is incredibly frustrating to see a system work so badly for something so important, and that frustrations naturally gets projected onto the benefactor of that injustice.
- gist 8y ago
  > made around 40% profits year-over-year. Those margins are on the high end for luxury brands like Apple. However, when we're publicly funding science, we're not funding it as a luxury product - quite the opposite, in fact: we want the results to be a commodity. The number 40% is not relevant. My guess is that if the number was 25% there would be the same issue and outrage. The thing is everybody wants to decide what is fair for someone else and especially when it impacts the directly in some way. > It's just that Elsevier and its kind have been put in a position where they've been able to obtain something resembling a monopoly
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    You're partly right - there'd still be outrage. When it comes to profits, however, the excessive profits are a major source of frustration. But of course, the other part is that we're publicly funding research, yes that those funds do not cover that final, comparatively small part of publishing the research for all to read. If we could all immediately view the results of the research we fund, and Elsevier and its ilk would not be scooping off 40% of the publishing costs, I'm quite sure they wouldn't be the target of so much ire.

by gist 8y ago

natechols 8y ago

The problem is that they're making money off content they didn't produce, that taxpayers paid for in many cases, and they're actually preventing wide dissemination of research results. It's not like they're particularly good at their job either - I have yet to meet a scientist who actually enjoys interacting with journal publishers. They simply don't have a choice if they want to stay in an academic position.

gist 8y ago
That is called capitalism. By the way there are plenty of people that are making money off of what the government funded which of course was the arpanet and the internet.

yesenadam 8y ago

>"I don't know why people have this tendency to freak out when a for profit company like Elsvier tries to make money." That's an interesting sentence, the way you've framed that. People objecting are objecting to capitalism...and the whole natural order. "Elsevier is..just trying to do what it was created for, like a bird singing or the sun rising or a baby smiling, why is that such a problem? People are just freaking out! I don't know why."

chlvsl 8y ago
It's actually an anti-statist pushback. Elsevier no longer represents the interests of the community at large. Academic professionals interact with them only when it's absolutely necessary, NOT because they add any value. Literally an artificial monopoly. New technology such as the web has allowed us to remove the need for this middle man of distribution.
gist 8y ago
Yes they freak out because it's not money going into their pocket but someone elses. And they don't think it's fair. You get a similar outrage for a different reason against the last mile and cable companies. Why should they control the 'final mile'. Why can't everyone have access to the lines which they dug? Why? Because they got there first and spent the money to gamble when there was no guarantee of success which is obvious now. That is capitalism and business.

msla 8y ago

If a for-profit company can't market itself effectively, it is going to die. Elsvier is the textbook example of a company that hasn't marketed itself effectively, unless you consider "WE ARE MONOPOLY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!" to be a marketing strategy. Well, the monopoly is over. Nature is taking its course. Think of it as evolution in action.

Vinnl 8y ago

> I don't know why people have this tendency to freak out when a for profit company like Elsvier tries to make money. That's not the problem. Elsevier and its kind haven't just "made money", they've consistently (i.e. for over two decades) made around 40% profits year-over-year. Those margins are on the high end for luxury brands like Apple. However, when we're publicly funding science, we're not funding it as a luxury product - quite the opposite, in fact: we want the results to be a commodity. It's just that Elsevier and its kind have been put in a position where they've been able to obtain something resembling a monopoly, and that just so happens to be in an area where that allows them to lay their hands on a disproportionately large share of money that's earmarked for eye-catching things like cancer research. Sure, it might not be that justified to be angry at Elsevier for doing what's the only logical thing to do, in their position, but it is incredibly frustrating to see a system work so badly for something so important, and that frustrations naturally gets projected onto the benefactor of that injustice.

gist 8y ago
> made around 40% profits year-over-year. Those margins are on the high end for luxury brands like Apple. However, when we're publicly funding science, we're not funding it as a luxury product - quite the opposite, in fact: we want the results to be a commodity. The number 40% is not relevant. My guess is that if the number was 25% there would be the same issue and outrage. The thing is everybody wants to decide what is fair for someone else and especially when it impacts the directly in some way. > It's just that Elsevier and its kind have been put in a position where they've been able to obtain something resembling a monopoly
- Vinnl 8y ago
  You're partly right - there'd still be outrage. When it comes to profits, however, the excessive profits are a major source of frustration. But of course, the other part is that we're publicly funding research, yes that those funds do not cover that final, comparatively small part of publishing the research for all to read. If we could all immediately view the results of the research we fund, and Elsevier and its ilk would not be scooping off 40% of the publishing costs, I'm quite sure they wouldn't be the target of so much ire.