Re: "Elsevier NOT about weapons trade"

Re: "Elsevier NOT about weapons trade"

[jim stasheff]

Hi Dusko,

One of Elsevier's motives (and  other publishers) is close to
trying to corner the market
or at least squeeze out all the profit possible

we now have several ways to resist
1. choice of journal to which we submit papers
B. choice of journal for which we will perform slave labor (editing)
III. advice in re the above to our mentees

jim


Dusko Pavlovic wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to make two points in response to Gabor Lukacz's post.
>
> 1)  The reasoning that arms dealers just cater to the market, and bear
> no responsibility for wars or murders --- applies to drug dealers
> equally well. Indeed, the same reasoning appears not only in the charter
> of the National Rifle Association, but also in interviews of Pablo
> Escobar, who would say something like:
>
>> (If there were no [cocaine users], would there be any point in
>> manufacturing [cocaine]? Let me
>> ask it clearer: Would it bring *profit* to manufacture [cocaine] in
>> that case??)
>
>
> 2) It is not obvious to me that a scientific venue, such as the
> Categories mailing list, is a priori inappropriate to discuss
> publishers' motives. Lancet is another scientific venue, and they found
> it appropriate to oppose Elsevier's stance.
>
> We probably cannot avoid the fact that the dissemination methods of a
> science influence its contents, and the way people set up their research
> goals. The presence of TAC, and maybe even of this very list, have
> probably influenced category theory research. Elsevier has probably
> influenced category theory research. Most of that influence was probably
> positive. But the world is changing, Elsevier is changing and it might
> make sense to exchange thoughts on how their changes may influence our
> research. That does not seem to be out of scope of this list.
>
> all the best,
> -- dusko
>
>