Arms trade and Reed Elsevier
Reed Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of scientific journals, is again on the spotlight for its involvement in businesses that promote arm trade. Reed Elsevier has two subsidiaries, Reed Exhibitions and Spearhead Exhibition that organise arms fairs throughout the world.
In a recent press release, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust announced the disposal of US$2m in shareholding in Reed Elsevier. The Trust failed to convince Reed Elsevier to abandon their involvement in arms fairs.
An editorial in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine calls for scientists and readers to take the lead and organise a campaign for Reed Elsevier to distance itself from such immoral and corrupt business.
This aim is very honourable. With a little coordination the goal is feasible. The issue, however, raises an important question. How could scholars make sure their scientific research is used only for the progress of the human community? This is clearly a much bigger coordination problem. There will always be free-riders even within the scientific community. And the application of science will always need agents-politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers etc.-driven by motives other than science and progress.
On the other hand, there is also the risk that control over the use of scientific research may easily turns into censorship. Progress and science would be seriously damaged. Where we draw the line? Whenever we want to draw it, Reed Elsevier seems to have stepped over it.
Some useful links:
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Friday 23 Mar 2007 | Nanni | Economics - general
I take it that you think authors of journal papers should boycott Reed-Elsevier journals?
Do you think there’s a difference between people who publish in this firm’s journals, knowing of its involvement in the arms fairs, and those who publish while knowing nothing of its involvement? I have published several papers, and a review, all sole-authored, in a Reed-Elsevier scientific journal from the mid 1980s, the last in 1999, and I knew nothing of the involvement of the publisher in the arms trade until I read JQ’s piece above. Am I as guilty as I would be had I known of the connection? I am now thinking of expressing my disappointment by writing to Reed-Elsevier and telling them I won’t be submitting papers there again.
Cheers,
Peter D, note that this post was by Nanni.
I’ve been following this issue for a year or two, without a clear position on what to do. My general feeling has been that moral suasion should be tried before a boycott. However, as the JRSM editorial makes clear, this has had no effect so far. If the Royal Society of Medicine produces a boycott initiative, I’ll support it.
Thanks John. I did not read the original comment by Nanni carefully enough and jumped to the
conclusion, reinforced by the first poster, whose comments you’ve modified, that the
words were yours. My apologies.
I will try to follow this issue, to see if the RSM recommends a boycott. If so, I’ll
have to search for another journal for that forthcoming paper of mine….
Cheers,
Peter D
An additional thing that can be done is simply to convince the editorial board to give up on the Elsevier journal and restart it under a different name. This has already happened in a number of very high profile Elsevier journals not because of this issue, but because they are ridiculously expensive. If you want to pressure the editors, then you can boycott reviewing for these journals too. This basically deletes the old journal in favor of the new.
I agree with Conrad that boycotting requires actions from authors and from reviewers. The idea of convincing the editorial board to give up on the Elsevier journal is quite interesting. I will try to check if the campaigners are considering this option.
LXTxbNLKA1hFN
order Augmentin