RE: Monopolies in publishing

[Mark Funk <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>]

David Ball suggests that commercial publishers have a near-monopoly on
validation, through the editorial process, and that this process is what
we pay for. Open access does not necessarily mean "no refereeing." It can
mean that, but most of the open access models we are discussing (BioMed
Central, PLoS, etc.) have in place the exact same validation process that
traditional journals use: articles are submitted to editors, who assign
referees to evaluate and make suggestions for improvement. After revisions
are made and approved, the article is accepted and published. There is no
monopoly on the validation process.

Also, I would disagree with the statment that we are paying for this
process, and that dissemination is secondary. Except for stipends, or
perhaps a small salary paid to the journal editor (who is usually an
academician), referees are not paid for their services. This is the most
important part of peer review, and the publisher pays nothing for this
invaluable donation of time and expertise. For commercial publishers to
claim they have high costs for the editorial review process is a gross
exaggeration at best.

At 12:01 AM -0400 7/11/03, David Ball wrote:
> An interesting dimension is of course the commercial publishers' effective
> near-monopoly on validation (through the editorial process).  It's this
> validation that authors and their institutions want, and which we have to
> pay for.  Dissemination is secondary.
[snip]

> Until this near-monopoly is broken open access journals will not compete
> with commercial publishing.
--
Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021
212-746-6073
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu