Re: Merck published fake journal

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

Irony lovers will also love this rather typical piece from Dr. 
Prosser, a former Elsevier staff member who has since repented. 
Is he really suggesting that accepting sponsorship from 
pharmaceutical companies necessarily involves giving up standard 
peer review by journal editors and that this is the normal 
Elsevier practice - or is this one of his little jokes?

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: Merck published fake journal

> 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 Prosser