RE: Merck published fake journal

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Anthony

It is all a long time ago now, but I don't recall indulging in such
practices while I was at Elsevier and so I'm not sure what I am mean to have
repented for. What I do confess to is feeling a certain amount of
schadenfrude.  For years I, and other supporters of open access, have had to
endure endless lectures on how OA models are intrinsically corruptible and
that protection of the current models is the only way to ensure quality,
probity and objectivity.  So when it turns out that at the very time these
claims were being repeated in Parliament the claimant's organisation was
indulging in practices that most would accept as falling below accepted
standards I find myself thinking it rather ironic.

I also note the fact that it was my gentle ribbing that compelled you to
comment, but you are completely silent on Elsevier's practises - perhaps you
find them acceptable?

David



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Watkinson
Sent: 12 May 2009 01:42
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Merck published fake journal

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