RE: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

Please find a couple of comments about the Wiley Brief below.  It contains
much information of value; on one item I disagree; on another, I suspect
the situation of being much more complex than the Brief would suggest.
Ann Okerson

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Colin Steele wrote:

> In relation to my initial EPS quote, I note that at least I am 
> in good/bad company (depending on one's view point) given the 
> Association of Research Libraries make similar comments in 
> their 'Issue Brief on Wiley's acquisition of Blackwell', 
> February 26, 2007. 
> (http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/issue_brief_wiley_blackwell.pdf) 
> Excerpt:
>
> A spiral of rising prices and ongoing market concentration 
> squeezes out support for small society journals.
AO:  Ongoing market concentration is probably not the best 
explanation for the struggles that small journals face.  Such 
journals, especially in the humanities, have been very 
low-priced, could get by with "low production values," and likely 
never had a built-in margin or plan for technological investment 
and development.  Now this kind of e-transition and investment is 
essential for attracting readers.  Where is the funding to come 
from?  It's very difficult for a solo print journal to make those 
kinds of investments.  (This is where economies of scale really 
make a difference, as all types of publishers know:  the 
for-profits such as Wiley; the OA publishers such as Hindawi or 
BioMedCentral; the aggregators such as BioOne, Muse, ALPSP.) And 
if solo journals can't make the transition -- by whatever means 
-- their life span may well be limited.

> It is very difficult for other publishers to start new 
> scholarly journals in the current marketplace.
AO:  I'd challenge this -- we regularly receive offers from and 
announcements about new entrants, at least into the e-publishing 
arena.

####