nicebread · January 21, 2019 06:17
diff --git a/Elsevier review reply.txt b/Elsevier review reply.txt
 Dear Dr. XXX,

 traditional scientific publishers make higher profits than almost every other legal industry, using scholars' labor at no cost (as we are subsidized by tax payers) and draining university library funds (see, e.g. [1][2]).

 Your journal has a venerable history of publishing high-quality research, and actually all the credit for that goes to the authors, the editorial board, and the reviewers - not the publisher. Yet somehow the publisher owns the content, and hides it behind paywalls. I am not interested to further support that sort of unhealthy relationship between academia and (some) traditional publishers. 

 I made a pledge not to review, do editorial work, or submit papers to Elsevier journals any more [3]. Instead, I reallocate my reviewing and editorial contributions to sustainable and fair ways of publishing (see., e.g., [4]). I think JRP is a good journal, which took a laudable leading role in some of our field's reforms. I encourage the editorial board to end their relationship with Elsevier and think about more open and fair ways of bringing your excellent content to the scientific community and the public.

 All best,
 Felix

 [1] [Scholarly publishers and their high profits | Alex Holcombe's blog](https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/scholarly-publishers-and-their-high-profits/)
 [2] [Paywall: The Business of Scholarship](https://paywallthemovie.com/)
 [3] [The Cost of Knowledge](http://thecostofknowledge.com/)
 [4] [PsyOA – Psychology and Fair Open Access](http://psyoa.org/)
	Dear Dr. XXX,

	traditional scientific publishers make higher profits than almost every other legal industry, using scholars' labor at no cost (as we are subsidized by tax payers) and draining university library funds (see, e.g. [1][2]).

	Your journal has a venerable history of publishing high-quality research, and actually all the credit for that goes to the authors, the editorial board, and the reviewers - not the publisher. Yet somehow the publisher owns the content, and hides it behind paywalls. I am not interested to further support that sort of unhealthy relationship between academia and (some) traditional publishers.

	I made a pledge not to review, do editorial work, or submit papers to Elsevier journals any more [3]. Instead, I reallocate my reviewing and editorial contributions to sustainable and fair ways of publishing (see., e.g., [4]). I think JRP is a good journal, which took a laudable leading role in some of our field's reforms. I encourage the editorial board to end their relationship with Elsevier and think about more open and fair ways of bringing your excellent content to the scientific community and the public.

	All best,
	Felix

	[1] [Scholarly publishers and their high profits \| Alex Holcombe's blog](https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/scholarly-publishers-and-their-high-profits/)
	[2] [Paywall: The Business of Scholarship](https://paywallthemovie.com/)
	[3] [The Cost of Knowledge](http://thecostofknowledge.com/)
	[4] [PsyOA – Psychology and Fair Open Access](http://psyoa.org/)