Paul - Mario Pagliaro's blog

As surprised as you may be to learn it, the American Association of Publishers has hired the PR professional Eric Dezenhall to to take on the open access scientific journals such as PLoS. The Americal Chemical Society (of which I am a member), Wiley, Elsevier and other giant publishers thus agreed to pay the 500,000 USD fee of Mr Drezenhall to erode the reputation of the new web-based competition.

But what do they offer?

Librarian Jack Oberbloom at PennState is clear: "Costly journals and double digit growth in annual subscription".

The debate online flourished following Nature denouncing the affaire. But Nature, is part of the problem, says a reader in the comments section of Salon. The very fact that publishers thought to hire the author of Nail'em, the celebrated Pit bull of public relations is a clear proof of how much they fear the threat posed by the internet to the business of spreading scientific research.
After all -- as all of us who review papers know well -- publishers do not pay anything to reviewers. The only costs they bear are editorial: a few people to edit texts, printing and distribution. They, too, even learnt from manufacturing businesses to outsource jobs to hungry India and Pakistan workers -- Springer to India, Bentham to Pakistan --. So what is better at work than a quiet, rich business with little competition?

You may remember the outraged Roald Hoffmann, Eric Jacobsen, Allen Bard and many other great chemists writing to C&EN a letter shocked to learn the pay of ACS executives: "ACS is a professional society, not a for-profit corporation, and yet the 2002 salary of then-executive director John K. Crum was $586,360. Apparently, this was not enough reward, because in addition to that he received another $134,375 in "awards and bonuses." Of course, the executive director also needs an expense account, which adds another $14,478, leading to a grand total of $767,834. What contributions were made by the executive director to merit these bonuses and awards?"

I have the answer, Roald. Abundant cash flow -- money -- coming from publishing our work. And the internet -- web 2.0 to be precise -- is destroying all this.