Physicians from around the world urged Elsevier Group PLC., the publisher of The Lancet medical journal and other scientific and medical journals, to cut its links to weapons sales, calling on the editors to find another publisher if Reed Elsevier refused to stop hosting arms fairs.
"The Lancet is one of the most respected international medical journals and should not be linked to an industry involved in weapons designed to cause physical harm and death," wrote Dr. Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, and Dr. Michael Pelly, the association's international adviser.
Reed Elsevier said it supported The Lancet editors' right to free speech, but had no plans to stop its involvement with arms fairs.
The Lancet first learned of its publisher's involvement in the arms industry in 2005. Supported by Britain's Ministry of Defense, Reed Elsevier hosts arms fairs around the world that have showcased weapons -- including a 1,100-pound cluster bomb, one of the deadliest known bombs.
"The Lancet has a particular commitment to child survival, and cluster bombs are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children, and cause horrendous disabilities," said editor Richard Horton. "It is completely incompatible for Reed Elsevier to be in this business and also to be a health science publisher."
Cited story.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for this. I publish in Elsevier journals a bit, and I am inclined to not send mss to them in the future.
They publish Lancet and about a million other journals and books, and also search services like ScienceDirect, Scopus, Scirus, etc.. I hope they're shamed into being sensible, but publishers anymore are bean-counting MBA types, more worried about the bottom line than about disseminating knowledge, much less ethical behavior.
They do publish a gazillion journals, including--if I'm not mistaken--Cell. They represent a substantial slice of the limited academic-publishing pie...all of it, not just science. I am skeptical that a real boycott, even by all of Biology, would be effective at the corporate level. Still, more power to 'em for trying. I'll send my stuff elsewhere.
Some references that might be of use:
1. A few letters from various groups published in The Lancet (03-27-07) and the reply from the editors<\a>,
2. The online petition hosted by Dr. Tom Stafford at idiolect.co.uk<\a>,
3. The open letter to Reed Elselvier published in the Times Higher Education Supplement<\a>.
The letter makes clear that is not simply mines and clusterbombs (post hoc mines) which are the concern of these academics, but the whole arms trade. The buying and selling of arms which Reed Elselvier facilitate is against the ethical stance of many academics. Reed Elselvier makes most of its money from academic publishing. Therefore, academics are able to lobby Reed Elselvier, as the unpaid writers, editors and referees of the material they sell.
As journals enters a new period of web-publishing, one would think that traditional publishers would be doing as much as possible to avoid conflict with their journal community. A boycott now might just lead to a radical restructuring of the academic journal business - how many professors do you know who go to the library?
Reed Elsevier also publishes New Scientist.
Reed All About It!
According to Ben Goldacre, Reed Elsevier have bowed to pressure.
Bob
(hmm, I wonder if anyone will notice this comment :-))
i noticed, and thanks for the update!