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

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

I was not referring to employees when I used the term "editors" 
Colin. I meant academic journal editors. The word "editor" is so 
dangerous. I once had a Chinese visiting "student" who was amazed 
and puzzled by the fact that we use the same word for so many 
functions and the confusions that result - and here is just such 
a confusion.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Steele" <Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'

> My hopefully still good friend Anthony Watkinson hasn't commented
> on most of the original points below, but I thought the debate on
> academic contributions to scholarship and payments had been
> touched upon in the emails on Liblicense in January, for example,
> see the debate stimulated by Peter Banks and Dr Andrew Adams and
> the now somewhat related parallel discussion currently being
> promulgated on the American Scientist list by Jan Velterop and
> others, "contempt for the scientist as author and communicator".
>
> I was really commenting on the lack of Australian evidence of
> substantial remuneration to academics for their contributions to
> research publications, ranging from peer review through editorial
> board representation and even through to Editor-in-Chief of
> journals. I was not referring to paid employees of the publishing
> firms themselves.
>
> These reflections were made on the basis of questions asked to a
> number of leading researchers over the years, including those at
> ANU, and also from a nationwide CAVAL tour last year when we were
> discussing the Australian RQF Framework with a range of
> academics, including PVCs and DVCs Research. Nowhere did it seem
> that Australian academics were being significantly remunerated,
> if at all, for the amount of work they were putting in to
> publishing across the Disciplines, including Social Sciences and
> Humanities. If there is evidence to the contrary, we would be
> happy to have it cited, eg regarding office space, administrative
> support, consultancy fees, etc that is paid for by the publisher,
> etc. Sandy Thatcher has just indicated to the list that Penn
> State don't.
>
> Two anecdotal comments. Meeting with a senior executive of one of
> the top six multinationals in Canberra a couple of years ago (not
> Elsevier) he saw one of his Editors across the room and mentioned
> his connection with the publishing firm. I asked the executive
> how much the editor received and he said "Nothing, if we did we
> would have to raise subscription prices".
>
> Secondly, a major ANU academic in the Humanities was asked to
> review a 600 page book manuscript for a major American University
> Press. I asked him how much time this took and he said two weeks
> of my annual leave. Next question was, what remuneration did you
> get and he said, the fee then (in 2005) was 250 US dollars or
> $400 worth of press books. He said "of course I took the press
> books". I then said "for two weeks work?". Similar figures had
> been quoted a major UK academic press but again, its better to
> have the remuneration available if possible. I don't think
> academics generally mind?
>
> 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:
>
> "This document briefly outlines the growing dysfunction in the
> journal market resulting from the exercise of market power by an
> ever-shrinking group of large commercial publishers.
>
> This planned consolidation within an already concentrated market
> immediately raised concerns within the library community.
>
> Libraries have observed significant dysfunctions in the scholarly
> journal market place for some time.
>
> Costs for resources continue the trend of past decades in rising
> well in excess of background inflation. Numerous studies have
> documented that journals from the largest commercial publishers
> cost many times more than comparable journals from not-for-profit
> publishers. In addition, prices rise more rapidly following large
> acquisitions.
>
> A spiral of rising prices and ongoing market concentration
> squeezes out support for small society journals.
>
> It is very difficult for other publishers to start new scholarly
> journals in the current marketplace.
>
> The advent of electronic journal formats and large publisher
> bundles have increased the ability of merging companies to
> exercise market power to raise prices and direct compensatory
> cancellations onto other publishers' journals.
>
> History shows that mergers of large journal publishers lead to
> price increases."
>
> **********
>
> Colin