Unrest in the ACS

Anonymous Email draws attention to controversial practices in publishing house


[Published 22nd October 2007 03:46 PM GMT]


An anonymous Email that was circulated on October 10 calls into question the practices of the non-profit publishing giant, the American Chemical Society (ACS), which has long been under scrutiny.

The Email, signed only by "ACS insider," was sent to college librarians, ACS administrators, and a science writing listserv. It said that the ACS is growing more corporate in structure and described how it manages the 36 chemical journals under its purview. Among other criticisms, the anonymous Emailer wrote that the bonuses given to ACS executives are tied to the profits of the publishing division, and such bonuses explain why the society has had such a strong stance against open-access publishing.

The anonymous author responded to requests from The Scientist for more information about his or her identity only with "I just have to remain anonymous." He or she did not provide any confirmable evidence that bonuses to executives in the society were linked to profits in the publishing division.

The Email is believable, Christopher Reed, distinguished professor of chemistry at the University of California, Riverside, and outspoken critic of the ACS, told The Scientist in an Email. "Staff are intimidated about speaking out, they must do so anonymously. The profit motive has distracted ACS management from its constitutional purpose."

The Email called into question the high salaries and bonuses paid to ACS CEO Madeleine Jacobs, Chemical & Engineering News editor-in-chief Rudy Baum, and president of the ACS publishing division Brian Crawford, stating that the bonuses are directly proportional to the profits of the publishing division. Crawford is also the chairman of the Association of American Publishers, who, in August, launched the controversial Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) coalition, an anti-open-access group.

A statement sent to The Scientist from Judith Benham, chair of the ACS board of directors, said: "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."

According the tax information submitted to the IRS for fiscal year 2005, three top executives, including Bob Massie, president of Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) -- one of ACS's most successful publications -- make more than $750,000 a year, including bonuses. Benham added that compensation for executive employees is meant to be competitive, but not higher than other publishers in the market place, and that "no ACS employee's compensation is linked to the society's positions on open access."

Baum declined to say whether his bonuses were linked to publishing profits, but only that the anonymous letter had more incorrect information in it than correct information. "When anonymous material comes into the office I throw it out right away," he told The Scientist.

Several former ACS employees contacted by The Scientist, who wished to remain anonymous, said that while they were employees at the ACS, it was well known that upper level managers got bonuses that were linked to publishing profits. Sylvia Ware, former director of the ACS education division, declined to comment about bonus practice at the society.

As reported in Nature in January, the ACS hired a high-profile public relations firm led by Eric Dezenhall -- made famous by working with the shamed Enron chief, Jeffrey Skilling, and ExxonMobil -- to create a PR campaign against the open-access movement. In Emails leaked to The New Scientist last month, Dezenhall outlined a plan for the "coalition" -- PRISM -- to strengthen their position against open access by summoning warnings of censorship from government involvement in publishing, in addition to appealing to "elite groups of decision makers."

Andrea Gawrylewski
mail@the-scientist.com


Links within this article:

American Chemical Society
https://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/memberapp

Christopher Reed
http://chem.ucr.edu/index.html?main=faculty&facsort=profile&faculty=reed

Madeleine Jacobs
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biomj.html

Rudy Baum
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biorb.html

S. Ainsworth, "Brian Crawford will head ACS publications," Chemical & Engineering News? August 2, 2007
http://pubs3.acs.org/cen/news/85/i32/8532news10.html

A. McCook, "Going anti-anti open access," The Scientist, 12 September, 2007
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53584/

PRISM
http://www.prismcoalition.org/

J. Giles, "PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access," Nature, 445, January 25, 2007.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html

Dezenhall plan
http://media.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/sss_publishing.pdf

 

Rate this article

Rating: 2.25/5 (4 votes )





ACS policies
by Herman Rutner

[Comment posted 2007-10-23 12:57:14]

Thanks to the anonymous writer for risking her or his career at ACS.
I agree with several of the comments that there is a need for an open airing of all ACS affairs, including annual financial statements showing full disclosure of ACS income sources, staff compensation and bonuses further including policies and relevant internal memos.
As a member-supported organization whose primary purpose is preserving the interests of its members, I believe we are entitled to full disclosure of ACS practices that may have a profound effect on membership dues.
Herman Rutner, M.S. chem, 1966, Consultant.





ACS: against its members
by Ginger Katz

[Comment posted 2007-10-22 14:40:05]

ACS has consistently refused to act in the interests of its members while steadfastly claiming otherwise. The disgraceful publishing scandal is merely another reason to resign from this organization.

For example, ACS takes no position on the mass layoffs in the chemical industry and the sending of these R&D chemist jobs overseas even though these actions have devastated the US job market. Why? ACS holds stock in these same companies. When they make money, ACS makes money.

ACS only recently began offering "career counseling" and job placement to unemployed chemists while conveniently ignoring the real causes of chemists' unemployment.

ACS is reluctant to take a position on global warming. Why? Some companies oppose it.

Unlike other professional groups, ACS refuses to take a position against nonsense like creationism & intelligent design. This obviously undermines science education. For a science organization this non-stance is astonishing.

ACS only recently offered health & disability insurance to members after widespread demand. Why? It wasn't cost-effective.

Anyone thinking that ACS exists for the benefit of chemists is seriously deluded. Like any other corporation, ACS exists to make money, plain and simple.





Executives are supposed to generate profitability
by Hank Campbell

[Comment posted 2007-10-22 13:53:52]

You seem to be surprised that executives bonuses are tied to profitability. There would be no reason to pay anyone a six-figure salary if making money weren't the reason to exist.

I'm a big believer in open access, I think it leads to more citations and therefore is better for writers, but I wouldn't expect a publishing company doing old media to get behind it. Some publications are more prestigious to be in and they aren't open access. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon.





American Chemical Society: Management Coddled?, Membership Betrayed?
by Richard H. Ebright

[Comment posted 2007-10-22 13:36:13]

The ACS management has fought, tooth and nail, against the interests of ACS members, and against the interests of science, on access issues.

It always has been a mystery to me why this should be so.

The report that the ACS management has awarded itself unconscionably high compensation and has tied this unconscionably compensation to support of this position may provide an explanation.

I look forward to a full airing of the issue in Chemical & Engineering News--with disclosure of base and bonus compensation for senior executives and senior editors, and with disclosure of policies on linkage of compensation to positions on access.

It will not be sufficient for those receiving the allegation to "throw it out right away." Or to stonewall.

RHE