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

Re: Publishers and the doctrine of Good Works

I'm with Peter here. Certainly the view of our trade association (and I don't think it's just because our primary membership is nonprofit publishers) is that we aim to promote scholarship-friendly publishing - not because we're particularly saintly, but because (a) the scholarly world is our market for both authors and readers and if we don't respond to their requirements, we'll lose them and (b) because those of us who are nonprofit have a mission to do so. We also aim to promote a flourishing environment for publishing as a whole; this includes welcoming new entrants and new experiments, sharing information, raising levels of knowledge and skill, promoting best practice... Perhaps in journals more than other kinds of publishing, there is relatively little head-to-head competition (other than for authors, and for societies' journals)

This is not to say that we don't seek to make money - many (though not all) do, and in the case of nonprofits (tune out here if you've heard this a million times before) spend it on other activities which benefit the scholarly community. But it's not the only - or in the case of nonprofits, the main - objective

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Banks" <pbanks@bankspub.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Publishers and the doctrine of Good Works

I simply disagree with you. Your perspective dates from Rockefeller's era, prior to the era of breakneck technological innovation and product development.

Even if any of us had the knowledge to know what the preferred forms of communication would be in 5 years (or 1, or 3 months!), it would not be in our interest to restrain them--if for no other reason than pure greedy, capitalistic self-interest. Others are doing the work of exploration and business experimentation, at no cost to us, the fruits of which are then available to exploit.

Peter Banks


On 7/19/06 8:26 PM, "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter, I am sure you are accurately describing your own view, but
I must say I do not believe your remarks are representative of
publishers.  Or if they are, people have been lying to me.  OF
COURSE, publishers are trying to restrain the growth of other
journals.  That is their job, to outfox the competition.  To put
this another way, if they were not doing this, they would be
fired.  You can't have it both ways; you can't send Jeff Skilling
and Ken Lay to jail (or worse) on one hand for abusing
shareholders and then turn around and say that the management of
a company should embrace a free, open, and diverse market, which
is not in the interest of their shareholders.  As John D.
Rockefeller noted, companies wish to avoid "ruinous competition."
It is simply not true that "we all want more access to
information."  An economic enterprise has narrow aims; if it
changes the world for the better, it is because it profits from
it.  I love capitalism, but let's not get sentimental about it.
It is what it is:  a vibrant, creative force that has a limited
view of the world.  To get a complete view we need a pluralistic
environment.

And, yes, I agree that the less formal kinds of OA can not give
us the equivalent of the New England Journal of Medicine, nor
have I ever even hinted that I felt otherwise.  OA is mostly a
distraction.

Joe Esposito