Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I am sorry but this is just not correct. Building models of how 
much publishers contribute to the information chain is not helped 
by inaccurate statements. Expenses are expenses and honoraria are 
something different - as the tax authorities recognise. Let us 
call them fees if that is clearer.

I can imnmediately think of a clinical journal where the 
publisher fee explicitly buys the time which would otherwise be 
spent earning from private practice. Quite a number of editors of 
journals retire early because the income from the journal (the 
honorarium) enables them to live in comfort while drawing their 
pension. This is not a practice that publishers should encourage 
but it does happen - quite a lot.

I am reviewing journals that fit these specifications in my mind 
as I write but it is impossible to go into any more detail 
because any specific information even if disguised might be 
recognised and these matters are highly sensitive. I am of course 
aware that David Goodman is serving all of us in trying to tease 
out these questions, which is why his initial statement surprised 
me.

Anthony Watkinson

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

> The previous poster is quibbling. Honoria are so called because 
> they are honorary. They are not salaries from which one can 
> make a living.
> 
> I do not intend to post on this further. We have gotten much 
> too far from the issue, which is the difficult question of what 
> is the true contribution of a publisher of a scholarly journal
> 
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> and formerly
> Princeton University Library
> dgoodman@liu.edu
> dgoodman@princeton.edu