Re: Merck published fake journal

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

David,

There is no irony here.  These were *not* subscription journals. 
They were the result of a *producer-pays model* for the purposes 
of giving *free copies* to doctors in hope that Merck could 
influence their practice and prescribe more Merck drugs. 
Elsevier exploited the fact that doctors prefer getting their 
medical information for free and would welcome free literature. 
I can't seem to find any evidence that any library (or any 
reader) paid a subscription for these journals (if you do, please 
provide it).

If there is any similarity to be made to the subscription model, 
it would be the long-term practice of Emerald reprinting 
previously published articles without disclosing that they were 
previously published.  Emerald sold these articles in 
subscription journals.

--Phil Davis


David Prosser wrote:

> Irony lovers will enjoy going back to 2004 and re-reading the 
> evidence Crispin Davis, former CEO of Reed Elsevier, gave to 
> the UK House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology. 
> Right in the middle of this interesting practice Sir Crispin 
> was commenting on the quality and objectivity safeguards of the 
> subscription models - safeguards that would be undermined by 
> open access.  He also mentioned that 25% of Elsevier revenue 
> came form the commercial sector, including Merck.  We now know 
> how that came about.
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/4030106.htm
> (Answer to question 65)
>
> The Financial Times report tells us that the bogus Australasian
> Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine last published in 2005.  Can
> anybody from Elsevier reading the list tell us when the last time
> a similar journal was published?
>
> David
>
> SPARC Europe