Sorry, but this is hogwash. The reason nobody talks about Science being a non-profit is that it has for decades behaved in a way that is indistinguishable from its for-profit brethren. If they want to be known as a non-profit, they should act like one. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Science is fortunate that so many authors seek to publish with us. We shoulder enormous responsibility from both our outsized influence on research across many fields and from the journal's impact on ...
Really? I don't associate Nature with any policy fellowships & advocacy like I do AAAS...
Wasn’t the NFL ‘non-profit’ too for a long time? Makes me wonder about the operational definition.
I think you may be right about this. But I’m not quite sure what the most important distinctions are between non-profit and for-profit journals. If you could make one suggestion, what do you think Science could change that would be effectively result in it acting more like a non-profit?
What does it mean to act like a for-profit publisher if you are not one? To me, the key negative feature of a for-profit publisher is that they squeeze money and resources out of their publishing enterprise and give it to shareholders in the form of profits, which are required to be ever-increasing.