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 From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:36:35 +0000 I have no idea where the information about Elsevier policies have come from but there is one assertion in this curious report that is so incorrect that I want to counter it. I have run journals for parts or all of the lists of four major companies over forty years. I have never published a journal the editor of which received no payment. Sometimes in the medical world the amounts were substantial. I know what I am talking about. I wrote the contracts. Sometimes but rarely the payment (at the editor’s request) was described as expenses - drawn upon for air fares - but usually they were clearly differentiated from expenses incurred in editing the journal and quite often the costs of a journal office (the editor’s assistant etc) were also likewise subject to a separate clause. Now I have never worked for Elsevier. Maybe Leo has special evidence. Please disclose this. Anthony ________________________________ From: leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 19:11:00 +0100 For those who think that Elsevier, positioning itself as an information analytics company, might be less interested in individual journals the following article might be revealing. https://www.scienceguide.nl/2018/12/elsevier-willing-to-compensate-editors-to-prevent-them-from-flipping/ Leo Waaijers