University of California break with Elsevier tipped to boost ‘global revolt’

Publishing has become just business. The review is broken and flawed because just like a business, the journals busy editors (presumably wee paid), the 5-10 year PhDs without deep sufficient wide knowledge are the preliminary screeners and no over arching supervision are effectively preventing good mss. The editors let these guys als o reply to appeals defeating the purpose. Mss rejected by these inadequately equipped preliminary screeners have subsequently led to the author’s getting scooped by others, credit of priority that does matter is lost. The uk govt adviser to the dept of health said that research is useless if it does not reach those who need it. So to to increase awarness one must write simply for clinicians. Thar was what was done. Last weeks referee showed himself/herself out of date for electrokinetics by 200 years and 93 years for the electrical properties of platelets (1925), red blood cells (1927)! Saying that to his knowledge the whole cells did not have electrophoretic mobilties snd they could not be fractionated. And the editorial concurring showed pitiful knowledge and appalling jusdegent. For a new discovery avoiding flawed methods, a deputy Ed of the BMJ said that hundreds of people were using the methods (industry driven) and the new development did not deserve room in the BMJ. It is hopeless. So the ppr meant for the general clinical scientist had once again to be published in a specialist journal. 2. For retired academics actively writing it is impossible to do lit search for writing mss. It is about time that research done with govt funds and charities should be made freely available to all including retired academics and students who have no funds to pay. Will something useful emerge is a pipe dream at the moment. We watch with interest. Dr j Mehrishi PhD (Cambridge, FRCPath (Retired University of Cambridge research scientist)