[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Monopolies in publishing
- To: "'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- From: Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:03:09 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
It seems so obvious to me that subscription-based scientific journals are monopoloid. Research articles are only published once. They are by definition unique. Access to unique research articles is often crucial to further research. They can only be obtained from one ultimate source (albeit sometimes via agents). There is no opportunity to go to another, possibly cheaper, source to find something equivalent, because equivalents don't exist. So there is no choice if you need the article. No choice in need means monopoly, no? Authors of articles *do* have a choice of where to publish (at least where to submit their papers). They can choose to submit to those journals that serve their purpose best (e.g. to those that guarantee optimal dissemination via open access). Open access journals are freely accessible by the readers. This makes open access journals non-monopoloid. Jan Velterop BioMed Central
- Prev by Date: Re: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by Date: RE: Monopolies (?) in publishing--summary for lists
- Previous by thread: Re: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by thread: Re: Monopolies in publishing
- Index(es):