anbei ein interessanter Artikel über die Auswirkungen des gegenwärtig herrschenden Geschäftsmodells wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen durch große kommerzielle Wissenschaftsverlage wie Elsevier, Springer, Wiley et al. auf die Entwicklung der Wissenschaft:
Antoinette Molinié and Geoffrey Bodenhausen. On toxic effects of scientific journals. In: Journal of Biosciences. Vol. 38.2013. p. 189–199. DOI 10.1007/s12038-013-9328-5. URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12038-013-9328-5
Aus den ‚Conclusions‘:
It seems urgent to reflect on the power wielded by a handful of commercial publishers, not merely because their profits might be better used elsewhere, but because their selection of submitted papers is not based on sufficient scientific insight to draw a roadmap for the future of science. …The perverse mechanisms can be summarized as follows: publishers select papers that enhance their impact factors and sales. Granting agencies accept bibliometric measures like impact factors as criteria to rank proposals and scientists. Thus publishers exert undue influence on the making of science policy. Only papers that boost the publishers‘ revenues are deemed worthy of support. In the end, the taxpayers support both authors and reviewers, boost the publishers‘ profits through library subscriptions, and allow commercial interests to set priorities in science policy.Science used to be considered as a form of cultural creativity. It still can be, but one has to make considerable efforts to isolate oneself from all the humdrum, hype, and bling-bling, from the craze of impact factors, h-factors, and other toxic by-products of current editorial manias. … (p. 198)
Bibliotheken und Konsortien sind ebenfalls Akteure in diesen Publikationsstrukturen und bei dem dringlich gebotenen Reflexionsprozess gleichermaßen gefordert.
althoffkonsortium 