[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@princeton.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:07:58 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I am commenting on only the following portion of Dean's argument: > .... Whoever funds publication will necessarily have a considerable degree of > power over both authors and the content that gets published. The question then > becomes,should that power be diffused over hundreds or thousands > of paying subscribers or should funding decisions be concentrated in the > hands of academic committees, sponsors, or institutional benefactors? Both > alternatives have obvious benefits and pitfalls. For journals not sponsored by societies, the hundred of paying subscribers for most journals are almost exclusively acaddemic libraries; for those published by societies, they include society members. Libraries have in the past made decisions based primarily on the explicit recommendations of the departments they serve; in recent years, they normally supplement or replace these recommendations by the implicit recommendation shown by use patterns. In either case these are exactly the same people who would be on the academic committees Dean refers to. Naturally, this applies only to scholarly journals (and,incidentally, to scholarly books.) As I pointed out yesterday, any publisher able to produce a journal that people will choose to pay for --or even to tell their libraries to pay for-- will still be able to do so. Dr. David Goodman Princeton University Library and Palmer School of Library & Information Science, Long Island University dgoodman@princeton.edu
- Prev by Date: re: Monopolies in publishing: defining quality
- Next by Date: Berkeley Electronic Press 2004 pricing
- Previous by thread: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by thread: Re: Monopolies in publishing
- Index(es):