What’s the difference between the ACS, Columbia House and Vonage?
Posted by: Antony Williams in UncategorizedCopyright©2007 Antony Williams
What’s the difference between Columbia House, Vonage and ACS? Well, clearly a lot. However, I know a lot of people who have jumped off of Columbia House and BMG over the years and what has surprised me is how many people I personally know who are not renewing their ACS membership this year. Many people are leaving the fold after years of association based on their views of what’s happened over the past couple of years re. PubChem, Open Access and statements made by managers at both ACS and CAS. I’m interested to know if anyone has an estimate of numbers of people not renewing their memberships?
I am also aware of very good scientists who are now refusing to review articles from ACS journals. Some complain about the process, some about Paragon and mostly they complain about the quality of what is being put into their hands by journal editors. My own experiences are to the time it takes to get an article published in an ACS journal versus with a mainstream publisher such as Elsevier or Wiley. ACS is about 2X in terms of submission to publication based on my experience with other publishers in the past 2 years, over a dozen peer-reviewed manuscripts.
When I received the content below into my inbox tonight I shook my head in distress.
I understand the call-to-action to get the membership up at ACS. In the same evening I received emails from Columbia House and Vonage giving me freebies for getting my friends to sign up….DVDs and 2 months of Vonage Service. I understand the intent of the ACS providing me something “chemistry-related” with a Periodic Table throw as a result of recruiting a colleague to the fold (and the new member gets an ACS Beaker mug!). But I have to ask whether a call to action will block what appears to be an exodus (not yet a mass exodus) of my friends and colleagues from the ACS. For sure they all have blankets and coffee mugs already.
What I think is necessary is direct communication with the ACS members and taking on some of the tough questions floating around about the future of both ACS and CAS, their policies and views. With the Spring ACS just round the corner I recommend announcing a Town Meeting for all ACS members who attend the conference if they choose to attend. Rent a big room, put the senior managers of both ACS and CAS out in front and take on the hard conversations. I don’t see that the approaches at present are working … and a box of ACS Beaker Mugs and a handful of throws isn’t going to help. But announcing a Town Meeting might get the attendance at the ACS meeting up.
(No offense meant to the marketer/ACS member/roundtable discussion participants who came up with the idea of the throw and the mug. It’s a valid effort but is not addressing the challenge of losing membership…sorry)
Stumble it!
Entries (RSS)
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I for one have about had it with the ACS’ Paragon and Paragon Plus manuscript submission and review process. About half the time when I have accepted a manuscript to review, I can’t get the site to open. More recently, a review finished, I now can’t get the Paragon Plus site to show me the manuscript I’ve been asked to review so that I can enter the review. E-mail to the editor… “I’ll forward you problem to the support group,” was the reply. That was a week ago. Not a word from the ACS since. What a way to run a “railroad!”
As for turn around times for review and publication… that’s another area of frustration. A communication done with several colleagues was submitted to JACS for consideration as a communication and was held by the editor for 9, yes you read that correctly, NINE WEEKS (despite all the rhetoric about turning those quickly in 2 weeks ala the urgency of a communication) only to have the manuscript rejected with three positive reviews in hand, ostensibly because the editor couldn’t get five reviews. What was the problem, a desire on the part of the editor to reject the paper and they couldn’t get anyone to say that it wasn’t worthy of publication so we reject on the basis on not having FIVE reviews??? Even papers accepted for publication seem to get old in the proverbial tooth by the time you get a galley proof and then months later see the paper in print. Despite the ACS “High Quality, High Impact” tag line with respect to publishing in ACS journals, when you look at the process is the claim legitimate? The ACS journals are at least a factor of 2X slower than journals published by Elsevier and Wiley as already noted.
I can also echo the comment Tony made about getting very poor quality manuscripts to review in some cases. In one case, I declined to review a manuscript and then weeks later started getting dunning e-mails reminding me that a review was due for the manuscript that I had declined to review. Hello, anyone paying attention?
If you go into the edit information page of your personal information if you review for ACS, you’ll notice that you can specify periods of time when you’re not available to review papers. Immediately below that, there’s a blank for you to provide the ACS with a reason you’re unavailable. Sorry, but what business is it of the ACS’ as to why I might not be available?
Candidly, I’m not surprised that people are electing not to renew their ACS membership. I allowed mine to lapse several years ago and have no plan to renew it. From my perspective, the ACS is trying desparately and very ineffectively to become a publishing house that to compete with the likes of Elsevier and Wiley, both of which are very efficient organizations. Personally, I don’t think the ACS will attain that sort of statue in the publishing community any time soon. When you couple with that what seems to be various journals strongly reflecting the personal research interests of those who edit them, is the mission even clear?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
What’s a beaker mug? Isn’t that a tautology? Surely a mug is a mug (basically a large cup), a beaker is a beaker (either a piece of lab glassware or else a drinking vessel for infants). Maybe it’s an Amurcanism I missed on my travels Stateside…
db
December 9th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Was the Sumo metaphor deliberate? The Times today reports on a training scandal surrounding Sumo and how apparently the baseball bat is a key training aid!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3018625.ece
db
December 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
A beaker mug…shown here: http://acswebapplications.acs.org/portaltools/shopper/productDetail.cfm?prod_cd=1-BM1000
A fleece throw? That’s sheep tossing where I come from…shown here http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/11/16/108448/mystery-of-sheep-being-thrown-off-a-bridge-is-solved.html
December 9th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The Sumo metaphor was only because of the fat pipes…nothing more. It’s a separate post that this one though…it’s the NIH post…