petersuber<p>More evidence that some <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>publishers</span></a> set <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>APCs</span></a> based on <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/prestige" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>prestige</span></a> &amp; what they think the market will bear, not production <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/costs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>costs</span></a>.<br><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/society/neuroimage-elsevier-editorial-board-journal-profit/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">thenation.com/article/society/</span><span class="invisible">neuroimage-elsevier-editorial-board-journal-profit/</span></a></p><p>"<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Elsevier" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Elsevier</span></a> told editors that fees were based on a journal’s reputation —specifically, their <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a>. As the editors grew the journal’s prestige, Elsevier increased the publication fee by about 15%…Keilholz…concluded that the incentives for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ForProfit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ForProfit</span></a> publishers were not aligned with 'what we want for science.' "</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NeuroImage" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>NeuroImage</span></a></p>