Just six corporations control the flow of scientific information, a new study in Canada reveals. Since the 1970’s scientific journals have been controlled by the same few companies.
Researchers looked at scientific literature published between 1973 – 2013 and found that companies ACS, Reed Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell controlled nearly every single one.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
Naturalnews.com reports:
Many smaller publishers have been absorbed into larger ones, for instance, and academic research groups have become increasingly beholden to the interests of these major publishers, which tend to favor large industries like pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
Much of the independence that was once cherished within the scientific community, in other words, has gone by the wayside as these major publishers have taken control and now dictate what types of content get published. The result is a publishing oligopoly in which scientists are muzzled by and overarching trend toward politically correct, and industry-favoring, “science.”
“Overall, the major publishers control more than half of the market of scientific papers both in the natural and medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities,” said Professor Vincent Lariviere, lead author of the study from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science.
“Furthermore, these large commercial publishers have huge sales, with profit margins of nearly 40%. While it is true that publishers have historically played a vital role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the print era, it is questionable whether they are still necessary in today’s digital era.”
The following Natural News infographic illustrates the disturbing reach of this academic oligarchy:
Six major publishers control fields of chemistry, psychology and social sciences
The fields most controlled by this academic oligarchy include those dealing with chemistry, psychology, social sciences and the professional fields. On the flip side, biomedical research, physics, and the arts and humanities are influenced to a much lesser degree by these six corporate publishers, according to the study.
What this suggests is that, over time, certain disciplines have become more corrupted than others as they’ve been absorbed into the corporate publishing fold. Such content, though often skewed, is highly profitable for publishers which not only don’t have to pay for the articles they publish but also resell such content digitally at profit margins upwards of 40%.
“As long as publishing in high impact factor journals is a requirement for researchers to obtain positions, research funding, and recognition from peers, the major commercial publishers will maintain their hold on the academic publishing system,” added Lariviere.
Publishing in one of “Big Six” corporate journals doesn’t add value, study finds
But does publishing in high-impact journals really make much of a difference in terms of article exposure and the quantity of citations? Not really, the researchers found. The reach is roughly the same, they found, except that smaller publishers are less likely to be actively promoting a special interest agenda, and are thus less likely censor science that doesn’t correspond with the official narrative.
“One would expect that a major publisher acquiring a journal would have the effect of increasing the latter’s visibility,” said Lariviere. “However, our study shows that there is no clear increase in terms of citations after switching from a small to large publisher.”
“Our findings question the real added value of big publishers. Ultimately, the question is whether the services provided to the scientific community by these publishers warrant the growing share of university budgets allocated to them.”
Sources:
http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca
Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Latest posts by Sean Adl-Tabatabai (see all)
- John Kerry Vows To Bankrupt the Fossil Fuel Industry on Behalf of the WEF - December 5, 2023
- Top Cardinal Warns Mass Migration Being Used To Abolish National Identities - December 5, 2023
- Robert De Niro Left Reeling After Trump Calls Him a ‘Mental Midget’ - December 5, 2023
your references are cyclical. you cite naturalnews.com and they cite you. where are your sources, please?
are you trying to say that the information is invalid? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Thank you for doing the journalists job better than him. Good paper, doesn’t seem to support the sensationalist conclusions in this article, though.
The “general conclusions” portion talks about how these journals are basically an ineffective waste of money, not that they “control the flow of scientific information”. That’s moronic.
time to speak up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Fj8JkfhP4
your references are cyclical. you cite
and they cite you. where are your sources, please?
are you trying to say that the information is invalid? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
time to speak up:
Thank you for doing the journalists job better than him. Good paper, doesn’t seem to support the sensationalist conclusions in this article, though.
The “general conclusions” portion talks about how these journals are basically an ineffective waste of money, not that they “control the flow of scientific information”. That’s moronic.
Even if the initial assertion is true; “there are fewer publishers of scientific papers than in times past”, it does not follow that they are therefore more beholden to “special interests”.
Where is the evidence? Has the law of gravity been repealed? Has science discovered that cigarettes are actually good for you?
I’m not convinced that the raw number of publishers directly affects the quality of publishing. Maybe some really crappy, biased publishers went out of business and the overall quality is now better!
The author shows no real evidence pro or con; merely his own speculation.
it doesn’t take much to find source if you know how to use internet… http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 ..or are you just using classic troll smearing technique? 😛
No, you are.
It doesn’t take much to back up your assertion with an attribution.
It is still annoying, if you need to search ;P
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
plain:
“It is simply no longer possible
to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine”
so what if science, media, food, drugs, energy, etc. are dominated by a tiny few capitalists? yes, it does matter, what kind of psycho actually can’t grasp that?
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
plain:
“It is simply no longer possible
to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
Even if the initial assertion is true; “there are fewer publishers of scientific papers than in times past”, it does not follow that they are therefore more beholden to “special interests”.
Where is the evidence? Has the law of gravity been repealed? Has science discovered that cigarettes are actually good for you?
I’m not convinced that the raw number of publishers directly affects the quality of publishing. Maybe some really crappy, biased publishers went out of business and the overall quality is now better!
The author shows no real evidence pro or con; merely his own speculation.
it doesn’t take much to find source if you know how to use internet… http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 ..or are you just using classic troll smearing technique? 😛
No, you are.
It doesn’t take much to back up your assertion with an attribution.
It is still annoying, if you need to search ;P
so what if science, media, food, drugs, energy, etc. are dominated by a tiny few capitalists? yes, it does matter, what kind of psycho actually can’t grasp that?
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
plain:
“It is simply no longer possible
to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine” http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
plain:
“It is simply no longer possible
to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine”
>Just six corporations control the flow of scientific information
>But does publishing in high-impact journals really make much of a difference in terms of article exposure and the quantity of citations? Not really, the researchers found.
Get caught up in a little bit of sensationalist journalism did we? Calm down, mate. Half expected this article to launch into young earth creationist rants about how evolution is a conspiracy and the earth is really 6000 years old.
>Just six corporations control the flow of scientific information
>But does publishing in high-impact journals really make much of a difference in terms of article exposure and the quantity of citations? Not really, the researchers found.
Get caught up in a little bit of sensationalist journalism did we? Calm down, mate. Half expected this article to launch into young earth creationist rants about how evolution is a conspiracy and the earth is really 6000 years old.
citing naturalnews for *anything* is like citing Fox News and Infowars on what Obama has been up to…
I’ve seen dogs produce more reliable journalism in tightly coiled piles on my neighbor’s lawn.
citing naturalnews for *anything* is like citing Fox News and Infowars on what Obama has been up to…
I’ve seen dogs produce more reliable journalism in tightly coiled piles on my neighbor’s lawn.
This
article is very disingenuous. Those folks don’t “control” all
scientific papers, they are simply the main publishing houses that
provide the peer review functions needed for many papers to be
considered credible. I can find 75% or better of papers that I find in
any of those six somewhere else on line in seconds using simple Goggle
searches, and I do it routinely. This is, in short, yellow journalism.
Let’s go for an emotional reaction, rather than focusing on real issues.
Side jaunts on the path to hell, if we don’t get serious about the real
issues like adapting and developing resilience where global abrupt
climate change is concerned.
This
article is very disingenuous. Those folks don’t “control” all
scientific papers, they are simply the main publishing houses that
provide the peer review functions needed for many papers to be
considered credible. I can find 75% or better of papers that I find in
any of those six somewhere else on line in seconds using simple Goggle
searches, and I do it routinely. This is, in short, yellow journalism.
Let’s go for an emotional reaction, rather than focusing on real issues.
Side jaunts on the path to hell, if we don’t get serious about the real
issues like adapting and developing resilience where global abrupt
climate change is concerned.