From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 21:51:13 -0500 Jan, I take your point, but I am puzzled by why you brought it up here. Is there any suggestion that traditional models are somehow more pure than OA? I don't see that here. The context, as I understood it, is that some people were asking if editors got paid and other responded by saying that, yes, they did. Joe Esposito On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:55 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Velterop <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:53:14 +0100 > > "Larger journals (measured by income) pay more." > > This is generally true. It is also not unlikely to be a factor in > Editors' acceptance/rejection policies. Selectivity and prestige are > important, but income, particularly when it is "per accepted paper" or > "by published volume", as it often enough is, is likely to be too, > especially if the payment is substantial. The idea that only > APC-funded open access journals might possibly suffer from this > phenomenon is a myth. > > Jan Velterop > > On 07/01/2019 23:37, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:35:34 -0500 > > I have yet to encounter an STM publisher that did not pay the editors > of its journals. In HSS the situation is not uniform. Larger journals > (measured by income) pay more. > > Joe Esposito > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 8:46 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:51:24 -0500 > > The issue of editor compensations (or whatever they may be called) has > long been a point of high interest that still remains obscure. It is > of high interest because it lies exactly at the intersection of the > financial and the intellectual dimensions of scientific publishing. it > is part of the "entanglement" issue raised by Aileen Fyfe and her > colleagues (https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.WhSeiWMW38t). > > In an example I heard years ago, the compensation was so much per > peer-reviewed article. Information is much needed on this point. > Opacity does not agree easily with appeals to market rules. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > Le dimanche 06 janvier 2019 à 16:25 -0500, LIBLICENSE a écrit : > From: leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 22:09:28 +0100 > > Dear Anthony, > > No, I have no special evidence. I simply referred to an article I > thought might be interesting to the list. And yes, I know the > journalist well enough (1) to believe him when he says that he has his > information ‘on good authority’, and (2) to know that he will not > share his source with me. > > In the meantime, your information about editors receiving substantial > payments triggered a question. Where would the loyalty of these > editors go in the sometimes heated debate between research funders and > publishers about OA or Plan S? > > Leo