Editing Pergamon Press (section)

== Business approach ==
In 2017 [[Stephen Buranyi]] described Maxwell's approach in the ''Guardian'':<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Buranyi |first=Stephen |date=2017-06-27 |title=Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science |access-date=2023-05-08}}</ref>

{{bq|Maxwell insisted on grand titles – "International Journal of" was a favourite prefix. Peter Ashby, a former vice president at Pergamon, described this to me as a "PR trick", but it also reflected a deep understanding of how science, and society's attitude to science, had changed. Collaborating and getting your work seen on the international stage was becoming a new form of prestige for researchers, and in many cases Maxwell had the market cornered before anyone else realised it existed.<ref name=":0" />}}

The consequences of Pergamon Press business strategies during this period has been described by [[Mark W. Neff]] in the academic journal ''[[Issues in Science and Technology]]'':<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Neff |first=Mark W. |date=1 Dec 2020 |title=How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry |pages=Issue 36 no. 2 (Winter 2020): 35–43. |work=[[Issues in Science and Technology]] |url=https://issues.org/how-academic-science-gave-its-soul-to-the-publishing-industry/ |access-date=8 May 2023}}</ref>

{{bq|Between 1959 and 1965, Pergamon grew from 40 titles to 150. Whereas scientific norms at the time viewed scientific publishing as a public good that should not be subject to profit motives, Maxwell understood that scientific publishing was a market unlike others because there was an almost ceaseless growth of demand, and free labour. Scientists would pressure their institutional libraries to secure access to any serious journal publishing work relevant to their own.<ref name=":1" />}}