[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monopolies in publishing

What you say, Jan, makes all journals monopolies - it makes no difference
whether access is free or paid for.

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Velterop" <jan@biomedcentral.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing

> 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