[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Monopolies in publishing
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:54:59 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Dean Anderson's view that consolidiation represents a decline is fortunately not necessarily the case. To a considerable extent, as jmcdonald@library.caltech.edu wrote: > The cessation of low quality journals produced by commercial publishers is > a good thing. Authors still publishing in those journals were poorly > served by the publishers in the first place and will seek other avenues > where they can publish their research. it represents the solution. These journals cannot be making significant positive contributions to the cash flow of their publishers, as is obvious to anyone who will take a realistic guess of their true subscription figures. When there was no practical alternative, it was perhaps justifiable for them to be subsidized by the other titles, and by the few hundred research libraries then able to obtain a complete collection. Now publishers can return to their proper function. That function is not to disseminate all academically-produced material regardless of low demand or high cost, but to publish the material which is worth publishing. This can be roughly defined as the material that people wish to read enough to pay for. Those publishers who have such goals will do very well. (Let me parenthetically add that anyone who is convinced that all published material is worth publishing should find some expensive but low ranking journals in a subject they understand, and look at the articles themselves, and add some objective analysis by counting the citations to those articles.) However, Dean's approach to maintaining the journals that are worth maintaining is surely the right approach, in my opinion: > ... They know that price increases fuel further drops in > subscriptions and that unless this cycle is stopped, they'll be out of > business.... Publishers with a long-term view therefore have a strong > incentive to keep subscription prices stable. On the other hand, > publishers with a shorter term view may choose to simply milk the market > for all they can get before the market runs dry. > Dean H. Anderson > COR Health > http://www.corhealth.com
- Prev by Date: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by Date: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Previous by thread: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by thread: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Index(es):