[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Monopolies in publishing
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- From: Mark Funk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:25:26 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
David Ball suggests that commercial publishers have a near-monopoly on validation, through the editorial process, and that this process is what we pay for. Open access does not necessarily mean "no refereeing." It can mean that, but most of the open access models we are discussing (BioMed Central, PLoS, etc.) have in place the exact same validation process that traditional journals use: articles are submitted to editors, who assign referees to evaluate and make suggestions for improvement. After revisions are made and approved, the article is accepted and published. There is no monopoly on the validation process. Also, I would disagree with the statment that we are paying for this process, and that dissemination is secondary. Except for stipends, or perhaps a small salary paid to the journal editor (who is usually an academician), referees are not paid for their services. This is the most important part of peer review, and the publisher pays nothing for this invaluable donation of time and expertise. For commercial publishers to claim they have high costs for the editorial review process is a gross exaggeration at best. At 12:01 AM -0400 7/11/03, David Ball wrote:
An interesting dimension is of course the commercial publishers' effective near-monopoly on validation (through the editorial process). It's this validation that authors and their institutions want, and which we have to pay for. Dissemination is secondary.
Until this near-monopoly is broken open access journals will not compete with commercial publishing.
-- Mark Funk Head, Collection Development Weill Cornell Medical Library 1300 York Avenue New York, NY 10021 212-746-6073 email@example.com