To me taking publications that academia produces, getting them reviewed for free by academia, only to host a couple kilobyte file behind a 25$ paywall seems like a pretty risk free strategy.
The only risk they take is being so outrageously greedy that people will get fed up at some point and stop working with them anymore.
It's not the risks they take (which was your question), but it's an example of some value that they add to the process which usually gets overlooked.
And academia is already about networking; collaborations, at least in CS and Mathematics, are a big part of research, so finding the right set of reviewers shouldn't be too difficult for editors of a journal, given that these editors are probably well-placed people in the field.
It's both an insult to what publishers do bring, and something of an own-goal: if you want to replace a scummy operator, you have to understand what they bring to the table so that you can replace it with something better. It's identical to the people who scream about Apple and Google taking a 30% cut of app store sale - these people are clearly clueless about business and are shouting to the world their ignorance about what that 30% gets you.
> And academia is already about networking; collaborations, at least in CS and Mathematics, are a big part of research
Academia also has a lot of political backstabbing and competition for dwindling grant money. But Elsevier's role isn't finding collaborators - it's finding reviewers, which is a distinctly different thing. You also can't find blinded reviewers yourself or via known associates, because that takes away the blind.
Reviewers themselves get paid nothing at all.
In CS, the journal publisher/ conference proceedings publisher does nothing to organize the editorial board or pick reviewers.
For conferences, there are a couple of Program Committee chairs, and they pick the PC that then review papers and solicit external reviewers for help. Once again the publishers have no role to play.
Electronic journals such as Discrete Analysis in mathematics are already doing a decent job of offering cheap open access to articles, and have a solid board of reviewers.
This is also not true. It's usually journal editors who find reviewers. This is mostly unpaid work as well (publishers tend to chip in a bit for editorial board meetings, but that's about it).
Scientific publishers provide very, very little value to the scientific community. The reason why researchers want to publish in Journal X is that it has a good reputation, which is mostly a function of the editorial board's quality standards, and even more so, of Journal X's past publications (often dating back to way before Elsevier or whoever else actually acquired it).
Maybe they capitalize on that, I'm not sure. Although I had the possibility of publishing with them I turned it down, only because at the time I was way too busy and already had a deal running with Charles River. But mostly because... way too busy.
I guess it depends what you want from a book deal.
Any book deals I have been approached for have never been for financial gain. More like, let's get this stuff out in a dignified way. Elsevier seemed to fit the bill.
Is like I would go to Taschen for Art stuff. Revenue would not be the driving factor.
Again, not saying I agree with some policies.
In my part (quantitative, mainly methodology) it's all done in journals and monographs are rare. It really does depend.
It's a cool thing.
Scientific papers are not everyone's cup of tea though, and somewhat inaccessible (to publish for) for older people or those outside of academia.
Surely there is a middle ground between "JavaScript for Dummies", "Studies in Global Illumination" and "Computation on the modular hypersphere"
Actually, I'll be frank. Academic papers are designed to be inaccessible. Not all, but the majority. I've read plenty in Comp.Sci, and all I can say is that going out of their way to be obtuse seems like more than a fascination. I think it is called "Job Security"
Heck for the longest time, academic papers were behind paywalls that were WAY more inaccessible than Elsevier.
So there is that.
And that deliberate obscurity is a thing, though not a universal one. And that is evil.
I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days).
Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends.
Sad if that is not the case.
Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public libraries. If Taschen acted like Elsevier, for example they would be suing photographers for having exhibitions featuring reprinted photographs in public museums.
This is all of course besides the fact that limiting access to scientific knowledge for the purposes of rent-seeking is morally wrong and IMO should be criminal.
The difference between Elsevier and Taschen is that people like us don't appreciate computer science as much as art.
We expect to get everything for free online, not something I can hold in my hand.
Meanwhile I'd love to own an original copy of an Escher and stick it on my wall.
Other people pay good money every month to play world of Warcraft. I'm guessing amortized over time, more than Elsevier charges.
What do you want? Free everything, fine. It's available. Original content that someone worked really hard for and has a stupendously limited audience, but is presented with style and panache. There is that too.
At this point I don't know what I'm really suggesting. I can't say I like $25 paywalls. That isn't me, and I don't have the pocket change for it either.
That said, I do appreciate "known good reliable sources". and am willing to pay a premium.
I think "criminal" is probably a bit much. I'd like to understand the economics first. Nobody buys newspapers any more either. $.25c was criminal too, and look where the news is now.
I'm thinking.