[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'
- From: Sandy Thatcher <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:51:44 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
I agree entirely. Few, if any, editors are in this for the money. And few have significant enough leverage to demand payment if the journal owner doesn't want to pay. It is the rare journal for which only one scholar is suitable as editor. As I said earlier, any editor that demands payment from us will find himself or herself out of the job quickly enough.
I might use an analogy here. I served on the Board of Directors of the Copyright Clearance Center for about ten years before any stipend was provided. The stipend I get now is nice, but it doesn't affect my decision to continue on this Board one way or the other. Most of us are not motivated to serve in such capacities by monetary rewards.
Penn State University Press
I would suspect that most editors of scholarly journals do this as a part time situation in conjunction with their primary work as professors in their various fields. The numbers of academic journal editors, outside of corporations and professional publishing, who edit journal(s) as their full time employment is probably very small. Thus, I would argue, information about what they are paid being available probably wouldn't have much effect on anything.
For example, Professor X of Big Name University works as a law professor and gets $10,000 a year for editing the Journal of Silly Legal Cases on the side. Assume he's probably making $150,000 a year -- the extra $10000 is just not enough, in my view, to either sway him not to be an editor or to demand more money. His fee covers his time and trouble for the hassle of being an editor, but he doesn't depend on it in any real economic sense that matters e.g. he needs the money to buy food or pay his rent. Professor X has no real economic incentive to demand $20,000 a year because the publisher will simply get a new editor -- making Professor X's cost for his demand $10,000. If you assume individuals act in their own economic self interest Professor X will go for the situation that pays him $160,000 yearly as opposed to any situation that results in less than that. (And, actually, if you look into it, I would suspect that many people who have marketable skills (law, medicine, engineering) don't serve as editors simply because they can make more money on the side working in their field of expertise e.g. being a consultant, being a doctor, whatever)
Bailey Howe Library
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
Quoting Anthony Watkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
Actually Joe I think that publishers do not post on such matters is because they know other publishers are lurking there and do not want to expose their policies to their rivals. I suspect very few editors read this list. As I am posting from my home office and work part-time and not in a senior position for a publisher I feel able to say more than I would if I was CEO of Elsevier. I notice that Sally Morris gives more detail about policies that sound very similar to those I am used to, though, since her time as a publisher, heavy technology items like manuscript submission systems have added to the editorial costs never mind reluctance of universities> to continue funding. > > Anthony
- Prev by Date: Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
- Next by Date: Re: Misperceptions clarified
- Previous by thread: RE: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'
- Next by thread: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use