From: Velterop <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:40:16 +0100 Joe, I brought it up here because it came to my mind when reacting to the matter of payment to editors (external academic Editors, not in-house ones, for the avoidance of confusion). The context of the thread, as I saw it and still see it, was an article Leo Waaijers drew attention to, and which mentioned Elsevier had offered payment to Editors of subscription journals, in order to secure their support for the subscription model. Payment of Editors is nothing new. You – correctly – brought up the proportionality of payment to published volume. This rung a bell. My memory of the criticism levelled at APCs when we first introduced them at BioMed Central, the criticism that APCs encouraged acceptance of articles and discouraged selectivity, is still vivid. But there is no fundamental difference between APC-supported OA journals and subscription journals in that regard. My memory of the criticism of OA journals as if the the problem of income proportional to published volume – whether income to publisher or editor – were unique to APC-supported journals just flowed directly from my mind to my keyboard. Apologies for leaving you puzzled. Jan Velterop PS. I do see that proportional payment, in whichever model, may lead to the wrong incentives to accept/reject. But proper alternatives to publishers being paid by published volume only (APCs as well as subscription fees relate to published volume, not selectivity) have not been put forward on any meaningful scale yet. There may be some prospect in preprints, if they get widely accepted as serious knowledge sharing channels, and cited as such. Then the core role of journals, the service of providing 'ribbons' for career and reputation management purposes (and not inextricably bound to knowledge communication anymore, since print has been replaced by the internet), becomes clearer and payment for those elective services less problematic, because not unavoidable anymore. On 09/01/2019 06:07, LIBLICENSE wrote: 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