Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Corruption at Elsevier Shows Need for Open Access

Hash: SHA1

Another Reason We Need Open Access

,----[ Quote ]
| One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in 
| their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous 
| as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be 
| dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.   


Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal

,----[ Quote ]
| It is this attitude within companies like Merck and among doctors that allows 
| scandals precisely like this to happen. While the scandals with Merck and 
| Vioxx are particularly egregious, we know they are not isolated incidents. 
| This one is just particularly so. If physicians would not lend their names or 
| pens to these efforts, and publishers would not offer their presses, these 
| publications could not exist. What doctors would have as available data would 
| be peer-reviewed research and what pharmaceutical companies produce from 
| their marketing departments--actual advertisements.        


Merck And Elsevier Exposed For Creating Fake Peer Review Journal

,----[ Quote ]
| Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that you can do when everything 
| is locked up and proprietary, rather than open. There's almost no way to 
| confirm or check the data or information to make sure it's legit, so people 
| tend to assume it is. In that regard, perhaps it's no surprise that the two 
| companies eventually went down this road, but it does highlight one of the 
| problems with the way the system works today. As Shirky later points out this 
| is hardly unique for a firm like Elsevier, which has faced some serious 
| ethical questions regarding its publications in the past as well.       



The serials crisis has a name, and it's Reed Elsevier.

,----[ Quote ]
| Mind you, I don't mean to imply that we should launch another boycott;
| reigning in Elsevier's profit margins and/or market share would do little to
| offset the serials crisis. The only answer to that, in the long term, is Open
| Access, because it scales where Toll access doesn't. No, this entry is not
| really about OA at all, it's just a little kick in the shins for my favorite
| Greedy Bastard Publishers.


Elsevier steals, then copyrights other people's free stuff

,----[ Quote ]
| Reed Elsevier caught copying my content without my permission:
|     I was not asked for, and did not give, permission for my work to appear
|     on that page, much less in that format. Needless to say, I felt a little
|     slighted.
|     The website in question appears to be a custom version of the LexisNexis
|     search engine. This particular version appears to be Elsevier's own
|     custom version, intended for internal use. I don't have conclusive proof
|     of that, but the title bar at the top of the page reads, "Elsevier
|     Corporate", and the person who accessed my blog from that page had an IP
|     address that's registered to MD Consult, which is an Elsevier subsidiary.
|     My guess is that Elsevier's keeping track of news articles and blog posts
|     that mention them, along with the context in which they're mentioned.
| [...]
| Reed Elsevier Is Stealing My Words:
|     I received an email from ScienceBlogling Mike Dunford that Reed Elsevier
|     had excerpted one of my posts. No problem there--I like it when people
|     read my stuff....except for one thing:
|     The fuckers copyrighted my words.
| Copyright violation?:
|     Apparently, publishing companies don't always get permission for the
|     materials they use, either. Mike Dunford caught Reed Elsevier copying his
|     content without permission (from Stephen Downes).

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index