

How an angry maths blog sparked a scientific publishing revolution - necolas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/frustrated-blogpost-boycott-scientific-journals

======
cs702
In response to this movement, the editors of Nature defend the value they add
to the scientific process as follows: "[publishing original research requires
us to] undertake careful assessment of scientific significance, and the
refereeing stage involves much deliberation, occasional debate and revisions
that significantly enhance the robustness and scientific impact of the
paper".[1]

In other words, the editors of a respected scientific journal are openly
admitting they would rather have all critical assessments, deliberations,
debates, and revisions take place _behind closed doors_ instead of out in the
open, where it would benefit society the most! They don't see that they are
_reducing_ societal welfare!

I suspect the folks at Elsevier and the like are rationalizing their outdated
business models with similarly flawed, self-serving logic. What a shame.

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481409a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481409a.html)

