This story confirms what I’ve seen at a European level. It is very, very regrettable, but the problem with national chemistry societies is they start to develop the worst monopolistic behaviours. I am sure that no one in ACS gives a tinker’s curse that turnout for elections is around 15%, in fact, am sure there is a great sense of relief. I think all societies should have a cold hard look at their governance structures, some things that could be done include making sure that there is more representation from the young chemist societies, more involvement from chemists working in the private sector and also government – god forbid, maybe someone who isn’t a qualified chemist but who could give a different perspective. Directors, or their equivalents, also need administrative talents to question their administrators – and stop them from the madness that appears to have afflicted ACS. Nevertheless, what makes me sad is that the members and users of ACS journals will be the people who pay the price of the idiocy, no wonder ACS are reluctant to publish their mistakes.

Anyways, I hope the outcome for american chemists is a better society, or if necessary a new one. It would be a very good red flag for other countries who are complacent about their membership.

Best

Perhaps Leadscope would be interested in putting a portion of the $26M toward establishing a permanent endowment for a new Chemistry Guild. Hmmm.

Anyway, journals. The chemists at my large government laboratory recently received a missive from our central library, begging us to be more judicious in our downloading of ACS full text articles. It seems that ACS, alone out of all publishers, charges our library a per-download fee instead of a flat-fee subscription to its journals. That per-item fee has tripled in the past few years, and our library is sweating the fact that they are completely unable to predict the costs of ACS journal subscriptions from year to year. The usual threats of dropping ACS journals ensued. But here’s the rub… ACS clearly has a pre-determined profit they need from the Publications division. So as we all download fewer articles, the cost per article will continue to rise. You can’t win, and you can’t even break even.

Is PLoS chemistry an option for us? Will Chemical Abstracts be willing to index an open-access journal that directly undermines ACS Publications revenue? Seems unlikely.

When I have had conversations with people at the magazine regarding Leadscope, it has been in the context of how the magazine deals with “negative” stories. IMO, historically, C&EN has downplayed negative stories like accidents, poor employment markets, scientific misconduct, crap research, and bizarre ACS management decisions. The situation has gotten better—particularly with regard to safety, employment, and misconduct, but there is a ways to go. It would be nice if the magazine spent more time covering meaningful disputes/debates over society governance (like Leadscope) and in discussing/analyzing the value of certain lines of research.

I put most of my criticism on the blog or Twitter—where I know the editors will see it—so other readers can comment or push back. In my private conversations, I can get a little bit more specific and discuss facts that I’m not so certain about (e.g., “I’ve heard that…., is that really what goes on behind the scenes?”) It’s also nice to debate the merits of a point in person, without having to worry about hurting someone’s feelings in public.

At the end of the day, the editors get to “take it or leave it”, which is exactly how it should be. They are the stewards of our magazine. I will say that I have been surprised by how much meaningful interaction I’ve had with the staff at C&EN. Aside from the public interaction on the blog and Twitter, I’ve had several exchanges over the phone, e-mail, and in person (on campus and at ACS meetings). This has all been outside of the annual ad board meeting, which is an intense day of introspection for the magazine. I have always been very impressed by the staff at C&EN. They are great people—intelligent, professional, friendly, and open to criticism/suggestions. They take their chemistry and journalism very seriously, and they provide a valuable service to our profession.

“A Qualified Victory For ACS” (article)

The ACS has the brand and the money to get a lot accomplished. If you try to stage an ACS coup via the annual elections, it will take at least two years. The first year you can take the system by surprise. By the second year, the leadership will be ready for you and it will be much much harder.

If you start a second organization, you begin with nothing but guts. But as Sgt. Hartman says in Full Metal Jacket, “guts is enough.” It’ll be a lot of work for the people that step forward. Don’t get too excited that I registered chemguild.org two days ago.