Statements like "The hunt for growth and profit making for journals is a scourge on the whole academic endeavour” are reductive and unhelpful, in my view. The snarky response would be, “Great. Call us when you’ve changed the global research incentive structure."
That, too, is reductive and unhelpful.
This is an email list I'm writing to in the middle of the work day—so you must forgive the reductiveness—and I think it was quite helpful in articulating my point of view and generating conversation. As you know, I have certainly articulated my thoughts more in full in a wide range of venues for many years. I trust that many on this list read my pithy remarks in the context of the large body of work I have used to discuss my thoughts of scholarly communication.
I suppose I could easily Snark back, offering that call to point out how, at PKP, we have done quite a bit at changing the global research incentive structure—at least from the perspective of enabling a world where scholars are able to publish without pursuing profit or growth.
I appreciate that AIP are operating in good faith and with transparency. Nothing that has been said here attacks that, but I stand by my comment about how chasig growth is a scourge on academia. So yes—call it reductive if you like. But, from where I sit, as long as growth and profit drive scholarly publishing, it will be harmful to the academic pursuit of knowledge. Reducto!
Juan