1/ This will be controversial, but the problem is scientists, not publishers. RE:
Explaining how academic publishing works to non-ac friends: "So how much do you get paid for your papers?" "Oh no, we pay for publication, & then again to read the journal"
This is the best historical account of the modern publishing crisis I have ever read via #openaccess
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The answer is an unequivocal yes, and this piece explains why brilliantly.
Why scientific publishers make insane amounts of money—explained in 3 paragraphs.
“The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is ... a threat to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability.”
Was reminded today about this article on the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing. Well worth a read if you’ve not seen it before
On the massively profitable business of academic publishing |
On the shady history and profit-hungry business practises of big academic publishers |
Revealing backstory of Robert Maxwell's central role in the post-war rise of commercial academic publishing.
If you want to better understand the Cell/Nature/Science nuttiness, the ridiculousness of impact factors, the crippling cost of publications and the phenomenon of scientific 'rock stars' this is a one stop shop
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Insightful 2017 Guardian piece on the problems of #AcademicPublishing. Has a nice historical perspective, and explains how the whole problem arose, and when/why academics gave up managing publications and outsourced this to for-profit companies.
“OA..solves the difficulty...by simply removing the commercial element” << Hmm...Scientific Reports $$$$ anyone?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Excellent #longread on the scientific publishing industry and how we got to the distorted system we have today
I'm in the guardian on how a notorious press baron made billions and altered the course of 20th century science
Those "staggering profits" come from library budgets….
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | The long read
Short answer to a long read: yes, corporate parasites are bad for science and society.
How the exploitative business of academic publishing hurts science |
In case anyone wants some further reading, I'll just leave this here.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
For background information on the history of academic publishing, read also this informative article
Well said by about scientific publishing: “It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill.”
Good backgrounder on the history and current state of our effed up publishing system. Sigh. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Inside the lucrative scientific publishing industry HT Spoiler: obsession with journal prestige addicts academics to parasitical publishing houses who profit from our free work
This is true. Sounds like a scam. Authors toil for years for free. Write papers for free. Do peer review for free. Sometimes even pay to publish in color. And the publishing companies make billions of $$$
Dear scientists, Please read this carefully and think about where you publish
half of all clinical trials in the US are never published in a journal, but Elsevier has a journal for anything else
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? #openscience
Business formula for publishers: Scientists work for free and government foots the bill = staggering profits.
Essentially we should all be using and journals like and
Important read for every academic.. I get asked every week to review an article for a journal.. SO why is it that we don’t get paid for peer review?? Our socialistic approach to peer review has to change! Fair compensation for fair work! My Yuletide tweet
"If you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science."
Fantastic article about recent history of scientific #publishing - a must for scientists! - #Science
The incredible story of how Robert Maxwell turned science publishing into a relentless money making machine
How Robert Maxwell created the racket that is modern science publishing: #openaccess
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?" I would say YES!
Scientific publishers reap massive profits by exploiting free labor from scientists. How did this happen?
"Science should belong to scientists and not the publisher". The story of scientific publishing today
Regular publishers make 12-15% margin while scientific journals make > 30% by skirting editing costs w/ peer review
How Robert Maxwell turned science publishing into a money making machine. Cracking long read from
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Excellent piece on how scientific publishing continues the legacy of profiteering crook Robert Maxwell.
Fascinating deep dive into the often absurd world of scientific publishing by in
Excellent assessment of closed science, and why we need #openaccess publishers like !
Good and disturbing read: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Elsevier: total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between recording & film industries in size, but far more profitable.
Who knew scientific publishing is a $20 B/yr industry? This article in the Guardian is staggering.
Money's definitely not tight at the big publishing houses. Extraordinarily high profit margins.
Small world! Jeffrey Epstein's pimp, Ghishlaine Maxwell, is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a con artist who helped shape the academic publication industry into a corrupt pointless wankfest that wastes the life of academics to reward scoundrels like him.
"Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year." Completely infuriating! Academics and institutions need to take control back!
Ein ausführlicher Artikel über das wissenschaftliche Publikationswesen und Elsevier: via
If liked the article Peter Walter and I wrote about problems caused by monopolisitic, profit-obsessed publishing houses, you should read this excellent history of the problem, published a couple of years ago in The Guardian.
Add scholarly publishing to the list. There's an Epstein connection, here, too: Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, whose empire is now part of the dominant $RELX portfolio. Great telling of the story here
I'm shocked that and Springer journals remain down. Perhaps worth reading in interim: ;-)
“In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.”
“In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.”
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
The best article of the year 2017 | Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Good read on the history of scientific publishing and the dangers of its profitability.
Science publishing, critical to human progress is broken. Here's why. Spoiler, it's the money, but of course...
An interesting insight into the strange world of scientific publication for those of you who might not be familiar
Long article about current scientific publishing practices . I think we should move to open access society journals as the ones published by where fees are reasonable. #openaccess #publishing #research #openscience
Interesting history of how Maxwell founded an odd £19bn business with amazing profit margins: scientific publishing
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
“It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup.”
Totes. We're all with you. I also feel that the charge on colour is a total scandal, since 99.9999999999% of reads are online. Also this comparison of profits is interesting:
Is the journal system actually holding back scientific progress? Learn it's history and current status here --->
Re: where did I get the 40% profit margin from? Here
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Small predators vs. T-Rex
Excellent #longread in the on Elsevier, Robert Maxwell, & the origins of scientific publishing as we know it (piece is from 2017 but perhaps timely now)
Wait, we edit, review, pay for subscriptions, and now we have to pay again for a "cloud service". That's three times that researchers (in)directly pay for the same content! All while publishers make obscene profits, yet they still complain.
2 years old - but this article is more relevant than ever. Scientific publishing industry is an "oligopoly" in which Elsevier, Springer & Wiley-Blackwell together own estimated > 50% of market & retain new content behind a paywall, denying open access.
The rising costs of healthcare seem to be rivaled only by those of academic publishing. Profit margins are higher than technology companies Good for shareholders now but unsustainable #AcMed /7
Best article I've read about scientific publishing and how we got here. Respect to author . #openscience #research #openaccess #publishing Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill"
this long-read from Jun 2017 is a good explainer of how we got to where we are - though OA is not a main focus
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
“The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its im…”
another callout for the long read on publishing: #rluk18
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardian
I don't think I've heard before that Aspesi had analyzed ELS do incorrectly ...
Interesting read about the emergence of the market for scientific publications - and its decline?
Lately I‘ve decided to review 1 article for every 1 that I or my trainee submits. Have become increasingly protective of my time & cognizant of the flawed system
Not a study, but a good primer on the business side of this problem
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
You might be interested in this article in the Guardian on the origins of the academic publishing racket as it now exists, and the pivotal role of the notorious Robert Maxwell, corporate fraudster and probable spy, in its creation.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? |
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? #openaccess
A very important long read: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Are scholarly #journals actively damaging #science? How can the paradigm be shifted? #openscience #funders
Shearer referring to the recent long read #rfringe17
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
If you heard talk about journal publishing at #NECSS you might enjoy this
so u think we academics are smart, independent thinkers, and the ordinary voting citizens are slaves of the System?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardian
Scientific publishing industry for profit by exploitation inexplicably still thrives and keeps hurting science.
Interesting echoes of "bullied into bad science" by Randy Schekman here: cc pressured into Cell
How a poor Czech WW2 spy became a billionaire controller of scientific publishing. Great long read via
Very interesting piece on how scientific publishing ended up where it is, did not realise Robert Maxwell had a role:
Guardian Long Read on how scientific publishers got to the position of dominance that they are in today
"If you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science."
RT “If you control access to the scientific literature, it is ... like controlling science.”
bizarre triple-pay system: the state funds most research, pays the salaries and buys the published product
Yes - it motvates researchers to publish quickly and often in top tier journals instead of doing robust science
Thought I'd best read this as it's been filling my timeline today. Fascinating on the scientific publishing industry
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Yes, it is BAD FOR SCIENCE
A refreshing look at the profitable business of scientific publishing and what’s wrong with it
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? HT #rickypo
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for Science?
Scientific publishing: as if the New Yorker had journalists write and edit for free, and govt foot the bill.
70 years' scientific publishing - shaping the scientists & the sciences.
“You have no idea how profitable these journals are once you stop doing anything”
Short answer: yes. Long story of how we got here: read on.
“Scientists are not as price-conscious as other professionals, mainly because they are not spending their own money”
“But, as always, the publishers understood the market better than the academics”
Leseempfehlung zum Wissenschaftl Publizieren. Besond interessant wg laufender #DEAL Verhandlungen mit #Elsevier ^CH
The scientific publishing industry global revenue is £19 billion, exploiting volunteer peer review by scientists
YES. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian #longRead
Interesting, but why are these kinds of pieces only ever written about science? All disciplines write for journals!
The world of scientific publishing is in need a shakeup. Today, it's largely controlled by for-profit houses.
The Elsevier publishing model and the history behind it Coyle1859
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
E-mail from friend re. "Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?"
“professional success is especially determined by getting work into the most prestigious journals”
Must read: How the profitable business of scientific publishing is ruining science h/t #scicomm
Great read! Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | The Guardian
Well worth reading this from the on the business behind scientific journals.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
This is a long read but worth it 'Is the profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?' -> YES !
“It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, …”
Very much worth reading every word
Robert Maxwell's "predatory and entrepreneurial ambitions" transformed #scicomm. by
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
A vitally important history of profit-extraction from scientific publishing.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
“Aspesi was not the first person to incorrectly predict the end of the scientific publishing boom”
Historic case study in the cultural evolution of scientific publishing. Is this good or bad for science?
Fascinating historical overview of the modern scientific publishing industry
“Scientists, it seemed, were largely happy with the wolf they had let in the door”
Astute connection b/w the success of Sci-Hub & the alienation of academics from the biz of academic publishing.
If you haven't read this yet, please do. Relevant to our interests. #OR2017
This is a fascinating read about scientific publishing in ... part. Robert Maxwell's influence
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? via
fascinating story of scientific publishing - including its dark side
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
On the bizarre world of scientific publishing.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Robert Maxwell commercialised acd pub. Talk to us to take back control with your own jrnl! Read this & get annoyed!
'is publishing bad for science?' key issue: research assessment is outsourced to journals
LONG read (but worth it): How scientific publishers came to make staggering profits off research via
Yesterday Sir Timothy Gowers said academics, libraries and universities should create high quality #OA publications.
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?" Sin desperdicio...
El modelo de producción científica que gusta a los excelentes patrios (y les beneficia) es un sacacuartos públicos.
Interesting. As scientists we should take seriously our responsibility to use funds wisely & share findings widely
Yes, the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing is bad for science? Enter The Guardian
“If you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science”
"Scientists are not as price-conscious as other professionals, mainly because they are not spending their own money”
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Yes, but read by
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Many scientists believe that the publishing industry exerts too much influence over what scientists choose to study
We all know it but when you read it in this article it hits you in your face again. Why is it so hard to change?
How it all came about: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing the science publishing industry.
The science journal system actually holds back scientific progress. And #impactfactor is part of it.
“By 1994, three years after acquiring Pergamon, Elsevier had raised its prices by 50%”
V Interesting #longread: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Great piece of deep background into how we got into this mess.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
“Despite the narrow audience, scientific publishing is a remarkably big business”
Is scientific publishing bad for science?
I googled "Business of academic #publishing" and this eye-opening read was at the top of the search: If, like me, you hadn't previously given thought to the business of it, this may interest you.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
With profit margins higher than Apple, Google, and Amazon, is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (tl,dr: what do you think.)
Am talking at BL tomorrow on Disrupting the Publisher-Academic complex. Here's brilliant stuff last year from Stephen Buranyi (Guardian) . Scientists are vain and Maxwell was ruthless
FWIW Elsevier's profit margin hasn't been as _low_ as 30% since 2006, over a decade ago. Most of the post states "30%" as if it was exactly that, it's not. 36% is not 30%
Via : “[S]cientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs.” 
Who benefits from scientific publishing? #Science? #Scientists? Commercial publishers? #openscience #transparency
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
N.Young .: A good idea doesn’t count for anything unless published..Controlling journals is controlling science
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardian
““We scientists have not given a lot of thought to the water we’re swimming in,” Neal Young told me.”
Remarkable history of scientific publishing - a transformative money machine created by a British spy. A must-read
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
40% profit margins for scientific publishing companies - wow
The staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing & its history. Excellent piece #scipol
Fab article on publishers:What if asked journalists to write & edit each other’s work for free?
Une réponse à la question : quand a commencé l'emballement commercial de la publication académique ⁦
"Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this [science publishing model]"
"Outside observers fall into stunned disbelief when describing this setup" Academic publishing, in
A great, long read from on the scholarly publishing business and how we got where we are: #openaccess
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
“Garfield later referred to his creation as “like nuclear energy … a mixed blessing””
MUCH DISCUSSION TO BE HAD: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?" Umm, yes?
How scientific publishing got so messed up
Do you want your work plagiarized with a complicit journal? If not, boycott these journals. Send a strong message that we don’t tolerate this bullshit from journals that we can put out of business!
Down with traditional scientific publishing
Pierre Vinken Elsevier CEO in 1991 "You have no idea how profitable these journals are once you stop doing anything"
Well worth a read. After this you (scientists) won't ever want to publish again in a for-profit journal.
Between them Maxwell and Murdoch seem to have killed science and politics
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (spoiler-goes against Betteridge's law of headlines- answer is yes)
No competition= PROFITS “Scientific articles are about unique discoveries: one article is no substitute for another”
Good long read from the Guardian on the origins of academic publishing
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
History of journal publishing-- fascinating !
This is a profound analysis of broken academic publishing + really amusing biography of Robert Maxwell
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?"
"Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup*
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
History lesson about journal publishing puts Maxwell at the centre and Elsevier in the frame.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardian
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?" Umm, yes?
“It is difficult to overstate how much power a journal editor now had to shape a scientist’s career and the direct…”
“Almost overnight, a new currency of prestige had been created in the scientific world”
Excellent article on an issue that drives me beserk: the ruthless monopolists of ... #AcademicPublishing
Without reading the article, I'm gonna go with.... yes
On the staggeringly profitable business model of #science #publishing.
Long Read on history of acad publishing focusing on Maxwell/Elsevier. Ends with usual BS that digital costs nothing.
interesting article about the history of scientific publication - I did not know Robert Maxwell was a major player
“In 2015, a Financial Times article anointed Elsevier “the business the internet could not kill””
The answer is: support !
Pretty thin? Margins are up to 36% according to this article in Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? #parasites #scicomm
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? #openaccess
“A 2013 study, for example, reported that half of all clinical trials in the US are never published in a journal.”
read expose on academic publishing profiteering: taps into volunteer scholar labor-power
"Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?"
Scientific publishing rips off researchers, harms science, and gives monopoly profits to beyond-greedy business.
It is worth noting that Elsevier makes a massive profit - not small as someone had suggested - and has 36% profit margin which is basically unheard of (in my small business we are delighted with 10%) anyway I'm on strike for now
Another summary of the science Publishing: #cipss17
“Librarians were locked into a series of thousands of tiny monopolies”
Long but worth a read
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Do we really want the scholarly enterprise to be undergirded by a for-profit business model? #justsayno.
The perverse​ world of science publishers: we do the work, they make the money, all paid for by the tax payer
Fascinating read for any researcher. #OpenPublishing #PeerReview
#dasSMACC Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? #openaccess
Robert Maxwell, Pergamon, and the business of scientific publishing
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
In which business do customers do most of the work, and more competitors result in higher prices? Not wholly unfair
ICYMI: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Important historical background. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | The Guardian
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Must-read abt #sciencepublishing, profiteering journals & why #scientists must fight them #openaccess
'is scientific publishing bad for science?' Not if you select journals that add value & reliable science
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"with profit margins to rival Google – created by one of Britain’s most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell"
“in 1988, Maxwell predicted ... there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left”
Robert Maxwell and the birth (and prodigious growth) of profitable scientific publishing. Jolly interesting piece.
The story of how Robert Maxwell changed how science is done No, that's not a typo. Yes, THAT Robert Maxwell.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is business of scientific publishing bad for science? Picked
Share this with colleagues who aren't yet aware of this history and the problems with it, to bring them up to speed
Great overview of the dysfunction in scholarly journal publishing, & how we got to where we are now, from
Hard to see way out of this, but perhaps time for universities to start charging publishers for peer review
“By 1994, three years after acquiring Pergamon, Elsevier had raised its prices by 50%.”
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
This is a really important article for academics & researchers: #VirginiaTech #copyright #monopoly
For-profit scholarly publishing is a long-running public scandal of epic proportions.
fascinating to hear about Robert Maxwell's influence on how scientific publishing looks today
#mustread Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
How science got "trapped" in the publishing industry. It's all about prestige. By But know what?
The history of scientific publishing and the reason Elsevier is, well, Elsevier.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (also applies to social sciences)
"It is as if the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit for free, and the government to foot the bill"
How to build an industry that's almost "pure profit…"
Origins of our "bizarre triple pay" scientific publishing system: and annotated: .
Always good to see the case for #OA scholarly publishing feature in the national press - . A reminder that back in 2017 explained at more length how we got into this mess -
is capitalist profit-driven academic publishing @ odds w scientific progress?provocative read
Fascinating piece on the development of for-profit science publishing
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? via #openaccess
Fascinating long read: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Good question.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific #publishing bad for science? #science #scichat
why do we accept that research money goes to a 36% profit company to deliver scholarly communications? outrageous
The (excessively) profitable business of scientific publishing (total global revenues of >£19bn) #highereducation
Haven't read article yet but we may have found an exception to Betteridge's Law here - very rarely seen in the wild!
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
have we already lost the war on open access to science?
It's like if "journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill"
Robert Maxwell didn't make his money from selling newspapers. He made it from publishing.
Great new article in about the history of science's relationship with journal publishing companies
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardian
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
A 'perpetual financing machine'? Always again worth the read: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? >>>
Nice article in about the history of the scientific publishing business.
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (Yes, of course)
Robert Maxwell was instrumental in turning scientific publishing into big business
Here in a (large) nutshell is why #openaccess outside of the profit model is critical to the future of science.
A closer look at the staggering profitability of scientific publishing #openscience #Openaccess
These clickbait headlines are so patronising it hurts but aaaaanyway... do read... via
"science became strange co-production betwn scientists & journal editors - pursuing discoveries to impress”