Comments on: ACS Salary Spam

By: chemspy

chemspy — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:14:47 +0000

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.

By: will

will — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:03:22 +0000

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.

By: UCD Neuroscientist

UCD Neuroscientist — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:32:21 +0000

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.

By: ChemSpiderMan

ChemSpiderMan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:32:48 +0000

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.

By: chemspy

chemspy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:20:24 +0000

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.

By: Egon Willighagen

Egon Willighagen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:39:05 +0000

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…