Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I do not think this is an argument between publishers and librarians and I
hope very much that some guidelines can emerge from this episode. However,
David is wrong in suggesting that "better editing and reviewing" can pick
up all examples of this type. Editorial decisions are made by editors. In
this case the editor reported to a learned society. Contracts I write now
include clauses giving the publisher a chance of rejecting accepted
content, but in the old days and in most cases contracts with editors and
societies gloried in leaving all decisions on acceptance and publication
in the hands of editors and societies. Publishers constantly protested
that they would not interfere with the content. Unacceptable content may
be picked up by the person responsible for the copy editing but these days
these people are often a long way (sometimes physically) from the
individuals responsible for editorial management. I hope such people are
instructed to look for examples of unacceptable content. Obviously this
will be defamatory etc rather than copyright infringements, which are not
possible to spot. However the system as such is not geared to spotting
these examples. It is geared to getting into print and online what the
editor has accepted.

Anthony Watkinson