Matt HodgkinsonSep 13, 2024

"COMPLAINT against Elsevier, B.V., International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, John Does 1 through 50, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc., Springer Nature AG & Co. KGaA, Taylor & Francis Group, Ltd., Wolters Kluwer N.V."

Neuroscientist Lucina Uddin is suing major scientific publishers for antitrust breaches for allegedly colluding not to pay peer reviewers.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55069050/Uddin_v_Elsevier,_BV_et_al
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/elsevier-other-publishers-hit-with-peer-review-services-lawsuit?context=search&index=0

#PeerReview #JournalPublication #AntiTrust

Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al (1:24-cv-06409), New York Eastern District Court

Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al (1:24-cv-06409), New York Eastern District Court, Filed: 09/12/2024

Show threadMatt HodgkinsonSep 13, 2024
Explained in https://www.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/academic-journals/ HT Arthur Boston
Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation

Academic Journal Publishers Antitrust Litigation On September 12, 2024, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel at Justice Catalyst Law filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against six commercial publishers of academic journals, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor and Francis, Sage, Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer, on behalf of a proposed class of scientists and scholars

Lieff Cabraser
Show threadlegraLeGraSep 13, 2024

@mattjhodgkinson

This is huge- publishers are triple breaking the law w the unpaid peer review system. Let’s see what NY courts do.

@andrewdessler

https://mastodon.world/@andrewdessler/113105803996354103

Andrew Dessler (@[email protected])

idea: if you're an editor at a journal and you ask 10 people to review a paper and all of them say no, then you automatically reject the paper. good idea, bad idea ... discuss:

Mastodon
Show threadMatt HodgkinsonSep 13, 2024
@atthenius @andrewdessler I think the case is really weak, because: no publisher can coerce researchers to review; dual publication is not allowed to avoid a race to the bottom and wasting reviewer and editor time rather than to suppress competition (publishers compete fiercely for papers); there is usually only a restriction on authors publicly discussing their work in the narrow window between acceptance and publication (partly to avoid ruining press embargoes).
Show threadWilliam GunnSep 13, 2024
@mattjhodgkinson @atthenius @andrewdessler Yes, and if paid review was a thing, one should expect Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley to outbid basically all the society journals for reviewers, leading to outcomes that I suspect the advocates here would not be thrilled with.
Show threadMatt HodgkinsonSep 13, 2024
@williamgunn @atthenius @andrewdessler Yes, the law of unintended consequences is powerful.
Show threadMatt HodgkinsonSep 13, 2024
@williamgunn @atthenius @andrewdessler I am starting to think that rigorous assessment of research may require professionalisation of the process, but that likely wouldn't involve just adding payments to the existing peer review system.
Show threadlegraLeGraSep 13, 2024

@mattjhodgkinson @williamgunn @andrewdessler

I have full cost accounting for my time.

I’m allowed to charge to the account when I do panels or write for big things like NCA but not for doing peer review.

(Incidentally- funding for this program at nasa got sliced for FY25- so now I only get to charge for doing nasa panels, no one else’s)

Show threadWilliam GunnSep 13, 2024
@atthenius @mattjhodgkinson @andrewdessler Under the current system, peer review could be seen as a duty authors collectively owe to their peers, so in a sense other authors reviewing your work is how you get paid for reviewing theirs, but I know... this sounds like socialism and we all know that doesn't scale 😉
Show threadTim Ward ⭐🇪🇺🔶 #FBPE

@williamgunn @atthenius @mattjhodgkinson @andrewdessler Here's one story I heard.

PhD Student X during the writing of their thesis comes to the conclusion that the long-held conventional-wisdom position of Professor Y is bollocks.

PhD Student X in due course becomes Doctor X.

Just a few days later, Professor Z, who was X's PhD supervisor, says "hey, X, would you like to do a peer review of this new paper by Y?"

The new Doctor X jumps at the chance and writes a review pointing out in minute detail exactly why longstanding Professor Y's analysis is all bollocks.

Sep 14, 2024 at 2:15pmWeb