Publishers' view/reply to Joe Esposito

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

Joe says there is a consensus among publishers regarding the "naivete" of
Open Access advocates about the costs of publication.  According to his
argument, production costs are indeed trivial. (This comment is in
contrast to the many protestations of publishers, but I and other Open
Access advocates will gladly accept this statement as true.) It is
evidently the marketing of journals that make them cost so much. (Damn!
Look at this incredible brochure for Brain Research!  That must have cost
a fortune!)

Here is where the publishers are naive about Open Access. They do not
realize that Open Access *advocates* are currently doing, and will in the
future continue to do much of the marketing for Open Access journals. This
is a cause for many of us, not just another business model. How many
researchers and librarians have you seen doing marketing for journals from
for-profit publishers? Not too many. How many will you see doing marketing
for Open Access journals? Quite a lot, and this is just the beginning. Do
the publishers think this is insignificant? Sauron also thought a few
hobbits were insignificant...

Reporting from the Shire,

--
Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021
212-746-6073
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu