[Macha]

The legal definition of bribery though is:

> Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Scientific journals are not public institutions (though maybe they should be) so their editors aren't holding public duty. Legal duty also seems a stretch, though maybe possible depending on how the editor's contracts are worded. I suspect they don't say very much detail on job responsibilities though.

So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.

[haswell]

> The legal definition of bribery though is

This might sound pedantic, but this might be better framed as: The form of bribery that is illegal is the kind that involves offering, giving, soliciting…an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Bribery as a concept stands on its own, outside of the legal system. The legal system defines what forms of bribery will get you in legal trouble, but does not have a monopoly on bribery itself.

To your point, that means there are forms of bribery that may be technically legal.

[Macha]

Yes, the difference between illegal and immoral is one I've myself tried to explain to HN people often enough (though more usually in the context of people trying to argue "It's not illegal, why are you complaining about it", when a company does something immoral). That is why I had the final paragraph:

> So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.

[kmeisthax]

If you ask SCOTUS, some forms of bribery are actually constitutionally protected free speech!

[janalsncm]

If you asked SCOTUS, some of them might have to recuse themselves.

[shkkmo]

It is absolutely illegal.

Many states have laws that explicitly target commercial bribery. Even where those laws don't exist, various fraud laws can also apply.

I don't know if there is specific precedent here, but your broad assertions are quite incorrect as even a cursory google search will reveal.

[shoemakersteve]

While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal, there are many places (maybe most?) where it's not. Presumably due to the fact that it's near impossible to prove in court unless they were giving out receipts that said "bribe for business deal" on them or something. Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."

[shkkmo]

> While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal

Its over 2/3rds of states and includes most major ones have laws against commercial kickbacks. Even in states that aren't you could be charged with fraud under state law.

> Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."

This argument is silly. It applies equally to federal laws that are frequently used to prosecute kickbacks for government employees, contractors and subcontractors. There are plenty of ways to charge someone with kickbacks besides idiotically labeled receipts.

Just because you think you can get away with something because it is hard to prove, doesn't make that activity legal, let alone moral/ethical.

[worthless-trash]

Where did you get that definition ?