I was chatting with my friend, Jim Brown, the distinguished philosopher of science, about the possible involvement of the publishers in the Synthese affair. He told me the following story about an unpleasant encounter with Elsevier:
I can well believe that the publishers played a major role and perhaps bullied editors who aren't used to dealing with such issues.
I had a run in with Elsevier a few years ago. A paper of mine was accepted for a special issue of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, it was copyedited, etc and ready to go. Suddenly the publisher intervened and suspended the issue. Their lawyer had demanded several changes in my article, saying it was libellous. (It was about the pharmaceutical industry and the corruption of research.) After much back and forth, eventually I agreed to make the changes provided I could add a paragraph saying I had done so. Surprisingly, they initially agreed, then later then said they wanted several more changes. This was after delaying the special issue for more than a year. Some of the changes they wanted were ridiculous, for instance, they wouldn't let me quote from an article already published in the British Medical Journal. Eventually I withdrew the article rather that submit to the censorship. I'm still annoyed.
I feel certain that even those people who thought that the Synthese affair was driven by an North American political agenda will find it hard to condone Elsevier's behaviour above. I think we can say that there is now a trickle of stories of misconduct by commercially published journals.
Is it not time that we gave some thought to this matter as a community?
Recent Comments