Staggeringly profitable business of Science publishing

If you are interested in the publishing process you may want to read this. We have been telling you about the publication process and this article adds to the madness. 

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? by Stephen Buranyi CLICK Here

In addition to this, the Open access system has turned it all into a bottomless sink. Will it change….not whilst you have things like the REF and Impact factors driving people to publish in these journals. 

The journals have preyed on this so the high impact popular journals have all created open access pay to publish sister journals so when they reject papers they feed them into to the pay to publish journals. 

This has created an open access industry of tripe journals desperate for content……and your cash

Like the saps and Lemmings that we are we have bought into this.
However it is adding millions to the research budget that could be better spent eleswhere.

About the author



  • Generally speaking this is a problem in the patient community as well.

    How so?

    Patients read the briefs and make an assumption without having access to the entire article. Atop that, some patient driven writing tends to cite those same briefs whereby had they had access to (and presumably understand the gist) of said information their writing would change.

    Atop this, research papers that bind statistics sourcing from other research papers and only offer up a summary create a hierarchical cascade of whoops information that online patients again may see or MS writers cite.

    As this information enters into questions via patients, families, caregivers into interactive media such as Facebook the informational cascade takes on a WHOLE NEW life of its own. Believe me, its not pretty.

    When you see hundreds of patients arguing about a research aspect being numbed down to a 15 lowest common denominators, none of which are right… Then you become suddenly aware that here sits what amounts to small cohorts of patients larger than many of the cohorts in said research and they all were just pushed of the end of the misinformation pier.

    That information may well given the topic influence those patients care decisions. Thus they are thrown a weight to drown by rather than a life preserver towards helping them.

    Quite frankly… Its damned tragic.

  • Now, the above all said and I see it quite frequently let us consider a extraordinary aspect of this towards patients, families and caregivers.

    These people, 99.9% of them are not going to understand the research as to understand it one needs understand the science. They are patients, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relations or even other patients.

    They are TRUSTING that RESEARCH PAPERS CITED BY MS WRITERS ARE ACCURATE because they cant understand the research even if they had open access which is why they are reading.

    Those MS writers unless they are researchers probably are not getting the information right yet they citation their writing via the briefs.

    The patients and those around them are trusting that given MS writers are translating subsequent research into form's they can understand. The patients consider those writers leaders in the patient community.

    See the, "Oh my goodness!" happening here?

    Patients and their families make decisions on their care or even just living with the disease that are way wrong given their unique pathological profile and disease course.

    Now here comes the REAL winger!

    Its pushed that the better a patient, caregiver, family is informed then the better they manage MS and better long term outcomes right? Disease awareness information = better outcomes right?

    Yet as I noted above, they get handed a weight .vs. a life preserver as they UNKNOWINGLY walk off the misinformation pier.

    Thus that beckons the question is the offline patient or the one that does not seek out disease awareness information actually end up better off towards long term outcomes?

    Dang? huh?

    That patient is presumably following the clinical advice and disease management via their health care provider(s) .vs. actually attempting to understand a lick of it.

  • The university I went to subscribes to a truly extensive array of journals and gives me access to them through their library system (even off campus) for life. It's honestly a lifesaver. Never have I found an article I wasn't able to obtain for free through their system. Such a shame so many people don't have access to a resource like this and so are limited in the knowledge they may obtain.

  • Every university is trying to do the same the more universities the more subscriptions for the publishers.

  • Is the staggeringly profitable business

    I think Big pharma its a far more profitable business

    Copaxone, approved in 1996, is still the bestselling MS therapy, with 2014 retail sales of $3.4 billion in the U.S., according to data from Bloomberg Intelligence.
    Other data supports the Oregon researchers’ analysis. The three MS drugs approved in the 1990s—Bayer’s Betaseron, Biogen’s Avonex, and Teva’s Copaxone—had total U.S. sales of $2 billion in 2006, according to Bloomberg Intelligence data that track what pharmacies pay wholesalers. That figure tripled to more than $6 billion by 2014, even as several competing therapies were approved.
    Like big banks, pharma cannot be free to ravish the marketplace unfettered,” they write. “There is a need at times to grab the big banks or big pharma by the lapels and make it clear that they are seriously out of line and are hurting people.”

    • Huge applause Luis. I wonder if pharma are going to refund money for the CRAB drugs with their complete lack of effect on disability. CRAB drugs are the biggest health and economic disaster in the modern era. Why would these pharma strive for a cure or efficacious treatment for MS when they are making 20+billion a year in profits shared by their shareholders and researchers?

    • Will all due respect and all the competent people working ….But Barts blog as done is fair bit to promote Big pharma drugs.

    • sure we do it is part of the MS science, we don't generally do neutraceuticals because much is not science based

  • "complete lack of effect on disability"

    Newer drugs have the same problem:
    Fingolimod for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

    "Treatment with fingolimod compared to placebo in RRMS patients is effective in reducing inflammatory disease activity, but it may lead to little or no difference in preventing disability worsening."

    Inflammatory activity is decreased, but disability goes on.

By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments