Twitter | Search | |
Daniel MacArthur 11 Aug 18
“Working to benefit humanity is a priority,” says the company extracting 40% profit margins while blocking rare disease families from accessing publicly funded research. GFY.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
Replying to @dgmacarthur
Rare disease families are not blocked from accessing research. There are many routes for them to get access, not only via libraries but also via the foundations & societies they are members of.
Reply Retweet Like
Ashley Farley 12 Aug 18
Replying to @mrgunn @dgmacarthur
People shouldn’t have to jump through additional hoops to access information because they aren’t privileged enough to be associated with an institution that can (nowadays its barely) afford subscriptions.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn
Yes, everyone should have rainbows, unicorns, & puppies delivered to their doorstep by volunteers. Y'all keep wishing for that, I'll keep working on producing the best knowledge and distributing it as best we can.
Reply Retweet Like More
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
Sorry to be so sarcastic - it's the weekend - but doing a good job of anything costs time & money. The company that undercuts publishers in quality will provide something more cheaply & they'll claim the high ground, but they won't be doing patients any favors.
Reply Retweet Like
Christopher Jackson 12 Aug 18
That's a pretty horrid thing to say in this context.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
Not as horrid as hurting patients because they don't have quality research to use to develop therapies.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
For example: When I went around looking for partners to help with this, publishers such as Elsevier were the people who stepped up to help. This is making more of a difference FOR PATIENTS than any amount of online whining.
Reply Retweet Like
Ashley Farley 12 Aug 18
That’s not the topic of conversation. I know it costs to produce publications. There’s more than enough money in the system to be redistributed. Elsevier’s profit margins also aren’t magically solving all of the world’s problems. And I’m not wishing, I’m working hard for change.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
I know you are, Ashley. We've talked about this. Can you recognize the contribution of Elsevier as I recognize the contribution of Gates?
Reply Retweet Like
Ashley Farley 12 Aug 18
I do. I also recognize the need for change and the opportunity that Elsevier has to make it.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
And this job posting (just to bring it back to focus) is one example, the other example being the whole repositioning of the entire company.
Reply Retweet Like
Jamie Cate 12 Aug 18
How about paying reviewers, then? LOL you’d go bankrupt.
Reply Retweet Like
Samuel Klein 🍑🌿 12 Aug 18
Elsevier's net contrib to science at present is quite negative & not trending up. One of its greatest harms is convincing well-meaning people like you (and the hire you seek) that its amoral practices are necessary, hiring good scientists into fundamentally regressive projects.
Reply Retweet Like
The joke is on us 12 Aug 18
The research was usually funded by tax-payers so why not get access to the research they already paid?
Reply Retweet Like
Frederick Guy 12 Aug 18
Quoth the spokesman for a robber baron on the knowledge highway. All robber barons have cuddly stories about the social benefits of their business models, & spokespeople who may or may not believe the risible things it's their job to say.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
No, but we'd likely get poorer reviews.
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
On what do you base this net negative calculation?
Reply Retweet Like
James Lloyd 12 Aug 18
Reply Retweet Like
mrgunn 12 Aug 18
The taxpayer paid for the lab work, not the publishing work.
Reply Retweet Like