[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ALPSP statement on e-publishing.
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: ALPSP statement on e-publishing.
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:07:51 EDT
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
A very good point, and I agree completely. Those publishers who had trouble automating would generally have been those which had not been previously keeping up with the times either. Some demonstrated it by their remaining manual operations. There was more than one publisher which in Jan. 2002 had no better system for keeping their e-journal customers online than having a single person going through the subscription renewals and re-activating each of the customers, one at a time (which took some well over a month). Some then further demonstrated their lack of understanding of their market, by refusing to reactivate everyone until they reached them in turn. David Goodman Research Librarian and Biological Sciences Bibliographer Princeton University Library firstname.lastname@example.org 609-258-7785 On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Eric Hellman wrote: > Peter's argument about the University of Chicago Press experience is > incomplete without noting that the University of Chicago Press's > production process has always been oriented towards very high-quality, > carefully redacted titles. In other words, the electronic-first process > saved money on a process that started out expensive. > > Many other publishers have found that in order to go electronic, they have > had to clean up a lot of messes that the print-first process was letting > them ignore. So, in fact they are not lying when they say electronic costs > them more. > > I have previously observed that journal publishing is now a technology > business, and like all other technology businesses will experience an > exponential decline in cost of production. The chip industry has been on a > curve of 100% improvement every 18 months; for the steel industry the rate > has been much smaller, but constant nonetheless. > > My estimates are that per-article cost of production in journal publishing > will decline by about 10% per year for the forseeable future. Producers > that exceed this rate will do well, producers that lag will not do well. > > Eric