Re: Libraries Urge Justice Department to Block Cinven and Candover

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Anthony Watkinson wrote:

"However an example of a purchase that did not result in price rises has
been pointed out to me: it is the purchase of Gordon & Breach by Taylor &
Francis. I have not checked this and indeed (as an independent researcher)  
it is very difficult for me to do so, but perhaps someone on this list
could see if I am correct in assuming that Gordon & Breach prices were not
put up dramatically by their new owners.

Phil Davis responds:

The reason that Gordon & Breach journals did not rise after they were
acquired is that simply they were by far the most expensive journals in
their market.  Based on the analysis by Henry Barschall, G&B was the most
expensive publisher when analyzed by cost per 1000 characters, as well as
cost per impact.

This is documented in:

Henry Barschall.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Physics Journals.  Physics 
Today.  July, 1988 p.56-59

Henry Barshall.  The Cost of Physics Journals.  Physics Today.  Dec 1986 34-36

At 10:02 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Anthony Watkinson wrote:

> Having made the statement earlier that McCabe's thesis falls down if he
> assumes an inexorable link between purchase and price rises, it is clearly
> not enough to explain that this is not my own experience and I hope to be
> able to produce evidence (in time!) to back up my assertion. This would be
> evidence to back up my own memory of what was done by Chapman & Hall -
> nothing more general.
>
> However an example of a purchase that did not result in price rises has
> been pointed out to me: it is the purchase of Gordon & Breach by Taylor &
> Francis. I have not checked this and indeed (as an independent researcher)
> it is very difficult for me to do so, but perhaps someone on this list
> could see if I am correct in assuming that Gordon & Breach prices were not
> put up dramatically by their new owners.