Re: Who gets hurt by Open Access?

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I wish to add a qualification to Peter Banks's post, which I mostly agree
with.

There are indeed subsidies throughout the publishing process; the
difference is principally one of degree.  A university press may receive
subsidized rent; or a not-for-profit society publisher may have a lower
cost of capital as an outgrowth of the untaxed status of its operating
surplus.  And there is the matter of the use of tax subsidies to purchase
materials (think of public libraries).  And so on.  We don't live and
operate in a free-market society; we live in a "freer-market society."  
This is true to some extent of every industry (care to debate petroleum
policy?  or sugar?), though I suspect, with no evidence whatsoever, that
publishing gets a bit more than the average industry in terms of
reshuffled monies derived from regulatory policies.

Nothing in this post is either in support of or in opposition to Open
Access publishing.  My point is simply that OA must be understood in a
broader economic context, as we would examine health care, steel, or a
piece of cheese.

Joe Esposito


On 7/20/05, Peter Banks <pbanks@diabetes.org> wrote:

> And since when have publishers received "private support" or "the
> shelter of a special economic regime"? If I am receiving some sort of
> financial free ride, it's certainly news to me. I thought I was
> competing the marketplace. Please direct me to that "shelter," so I can
> escape the broiling sun of the marketplace.
> 
> The only one I know receiving private support is PLoS, which is
> supported by the Moore Foundation, and the only ones asking for a
> "special economic regime" are certain OA publishers, who seek to sustain
> their money-losing operations with government bail outs.
> 
> Peter Banks
> Publisher
> American Diabetes As sociation
> Email: pbanks@diabetes.org