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

Re: Monopolies in publishing

As Mr. Funk thinks that commercial publishers lie when they talk about
high costs of the editorial review process there is little point writing
anything about the (growing) costs of paying the editor, the editorial
backup, the office costs, the online reviewing systems etc. There are many
publishers who wonder where all the money goes in libraries, but on the
whole they do not post about it. However as my friend Terry Hulbert, who
is a learned society publisher and therefore presumably not commercial in
Mr. Funk's definition, has stopped lurking he may be able to tell him what
sort of money the IOPP pay out.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Funk" <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing

> 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.