A bribe requires three entities:
- the one paying the bribe (in this case the paper's author)
- the one receiving the bribe (in this case the journal editor)
- the one that actually provides the benefit (in this case the company that owns the journal)
What makes it a bribe is that, instead of paying the entity that's providing the service, you're paying an agent of the entity.
If you pay Harvard $1MM to admit your child, that's not a bribe. It's just a transaction. If you pay a Harvard admissions officer $1MM (to their personal account) so that they admit your child, that's a bribe.
If you send a check to the editor and say "for the journal": you call it a publishing fee.
If you send a check to the editor and say "for you to give to the journal": you call it a bribe.
Like that?
Check made out to the publisher of the journal -> publishing fee.
Check made out to the editor -> bribe.
The legal vs. ethical distinction helps determine what can be done about the bribery, but does not change the nature of the act itself. It’s just that bribing government officials has been (appropriately) deemed problematic enough to make it a legal issue vs. just an ethical one.
This scandal may very well provide the impetus to make this kind of bribery illegal too, because of the degree of harm and public interest in that harm.
A company wouldn't dare to say publicly "People older than 30 Years can't apply to our job" or "People from NY will be favored, we will not hire people from Louisiana". I see equivalent claims in the Academic field aaaall the time; is pissing on the constitution, and nobody fucking cares.
> Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Scientific journals are not public institutions (though maybe they should be) so their editors aren't holding public duty. Legal duty also seems a stretch, though maybe possible depending on how the editor's contracts are worded. I suspect they don't say very much detail on job responsibilities though.
So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.
Many states have laws that explicitly target commercial bribery. Even where those laws don't exist, various fraud laws can also apply.
I don't know if there is specific precedent here, but your broad assertions are quite incorrect as even a cursory google search will reveal.
Its over 2/3rds of states and includes most major ones have laws against commercial kickbacks. Even in states that aren't you could be charged with fraud under state law.
> Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
This argument is silly. It applies equally to federal laws that are frequently used to prosecute kickbacks for government employees, contractors and subcontractors. There are plenty of ways to charge someone with kickbacks besides idiotically labeled receipts.
Just because you think you can get away with something because it is hard to prove, doesn't make that activity legal, let alone moral/ethical.
This might sound pedantic, but this might be better framed as: The form of bribery that is illegal is the kind that involves offering, giving, soliciting…an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Bribery as a concept stands on its own, outside of the legal system. The legal system defines what forms of bribery will get you in legal trouble, but does not have a monopoly on bribery itself.
To your point, that means there are forms of bribery that may be technically legal.
> So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.