Oct 16, 2007
ACS Salary Spam
I suspect that a large proportion of the chemical blogosphere has either received the spam message from ACS_insider@yahoo.com some time this month or if they haven’t they will have seen it on one of the blogs. It’s on Chemical Forums, Peter Suber’s OA blog and from there it went to PeterMR’s blog, and the CHMINF-L discussion group, and several other blogs summarized in this Pg cluster.
The gist of the message is that a purported long-time ACS employee is frustrated by the size of the salary their boss receives and that this somehow relates to how the organisation operates and the profits it makes. Where’s the news in that? Bosses earn more than their subordinates! Shock! Salaries tied to success! Horror!
There is no way to validate the source of the original email from the headers alone, a free Yahoo account was used to send it and the YahooID is not in the membership directory of that site, so it may or may not be from a disgruntled ACS employee, we may never know, unless the person owns up.
My flippancy aside, the email does raise an important point, which Peter Suber and others wish to address and he suggests that the community should raise the following issue in open discussion: “If your professional society has opposed government OA policies, try to find out whether its executives get bonuses based on the revenues or profits of its publications. If they do, ask in a public meeting whether they believe this is a conflict of interest.”
I asked the ACS communications office to comment on the original email, and they got back to me with a statement. In it, the ACS categorically states: “The anonymous author makes erroneous and misleading claims about the compensation of these employees and alleges that the compensation is somehow related to the Society’s position on open access.”
It goes on to say that: “The ACS’s position on Open Access has been developed carefully over many years, in consultation with scientists and publishing experts from a wide range of scientific disciplines and interests. It is measured and seeks to balance the legitimate needs of all stakeholders in scientific publishing. That position has been fully reviewed and approved by the appropriate levels of ACS Governance, including Board Committees and the Board of Directors, and is not a ’staff decision’ alone.”
So, on the one hand, we have a spurious claim from an anonymous emailer claiming to be an ACS employee, which has been taken up by the chemistry blogosphere and beyond and a statement from ACS denying all the claims in said email and consolidating their stance on Open Access.
Do ChemSpy readers have any thoughts on all of this?
David Bradley
Site FAQ
Contact me
News by email
Free newsfeed
Social Media
Odiogo Podcast
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Network with me on LinkedIn
Add me on StumbleUpon
Poke me on Facebook
Plurk with me
View my Flickr photos
Pownce Page
Be my Feed Friend
Egon Willighagen said,
October 16, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Well, you can shed light on the issue by checking the IRS information. BTW, isn’t this boss part of a non-profit organization? Seems to me that a 0.9M bonus is quite some profit…
chemspy said,
October 17, 2007 at 7:20 am
Fair comment Egon. I could look into the IRS information (assuming that’s available to non-US citizens) but that wouldn’t reveal a link between open access policy and bonuses would it? As to the size of a 0.9M bonus, if that’s in dollars, then with today’s exchange rate, you could barely buy a small house in London with that ;-)
The point regarding non-profit status is worth raising too. It always struck me as odd that governments would endow organisations with charitable status on the grounds that they “do some good” for their membership or trade and so avoid the tax burden of the massive profits their commercial endeavours enjoy.
Maybe a shake-up of some kind is long overdue.
ChemSpiderMan said,
October 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I am not aware of a comparison across US Not-for-profits regarding compensation levels for the senior management so I don’t know whether the compensation given to ACS/CAS management is exorbitant or not. It’s a lot of money I would agree. These numbers are public every year and shared around the community. There are a number of vocal people but do the majority care? Silence seems to suggest they don’t. Maybe they feel they are getting value? I haven’t seen anyone say that so-and-so deserves their compensation but that doesn’t mean they don’t think it.
The question I am interested in, and I don’t believe this is public, is what are bonuses based on. There is an assumption I have seen flying around in the blogosphere that some of this is tied to publication revenues. MAYBE this is true…but we know that “assume” makes an ASS out of U and ME. What are the bonuses based on?
The issue of Open Access definitely should become one of the top areas of activity for ACS/CAS senior management at this point. It is “the” hot potato. Such potatoes should be handled …not left on the fire. I have not seen this dealt with yet (though may of missed it!) and it is time for a significant event/speech/declaration from the organizations to declare their views and intention. It does NOT mean they have to bend to the whims of any of us but a clear declaration would educate us all and then have us be able to respond with our own beliefs and judgments.
UCD Neuroscientist said,
October 29, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The ACS response seems like obfuscation to me. The bottom line issue is that ACS has as its purpose facilitating the communication of research in chemistry. Clearly, it is in the interests of authors to have the research be as openly available as possible to other researchers, students and the public. In order to pay high salaries, the ACS needs to restrict access to their publications. Therefore, the high salaries subvert the intended purpose of ACS. The measure of success that is being compensated with high salaries includes restricting access. This is contrary to the interests of ACS members and it would seem that members would raise their voices (and threaten to cancel their memberships) if the management continues to act contrary to their interests. It is going to be a real challenge to unseat the current ACS leadership. They are not going to want to give up their million dollar salaries and you can expect that they will do what it takes to keep their cushy jobs (including releasing the gobbledygook quoted in this post). This is the inherent problem with professional societies. They start with good intentions but when professional managers get entrenched, they subvert the purposes to their own personal interest.
will said,
December 16, 2007 at 7:03 pm
The ACS have little choice but to restrict access if they want to maintain revenues. Indexing with dynamic web spiders allows people to build enormous DBs on a shoestring and allows the likes of Google to allow people free use of their service. This innovation has changed the industry forever and the old services are held together (temporarily) only by keeping their information sources under lock and key from those that could index them (admitting my own vested interest here). The likes of ChemSpy and its multiplying companions on the web acclimatise people to the possibilities opened up by internet chemistry resources and this creates a new chink in the old armour on a daily basis.
chemspy said,
December 18, 2007 at 8:14 am
I think you’re exactly right Will, chinks in the armour are indeed opening up. Some would argue that that may not necessarily be a good thing, although on the whole they will not be on the scientist side of the argument. That said there are lots of murmurings about the pay-to-publish model too.
db