Re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

Actually Joe I think that publishers do not post on such matters 
is because they know other publishers are lurking there and do 
not want to expose their policies to their rivals. I suspect very 
few editors read this list.

As I am posting from my home office and work part-time and not in 
a senior position for a publisher I feel able to say more than I 
would if I was CEO of Elsevier.

I notice that Sally Morris gives more detail about policies that 
sound very similar to those I am used to, though, since her time 
as a publisher, heavy technology items like manuscript submission 
systems have added to the editorial costs never mind reluctance 
of universities to continue funding.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'

> So here we have in Colin Steele's post a perfect illustration 
> of why the theory of "non-rival goods," beloved by economists, 
> does not apply to information.  Steele tells the world that 
> publishers pay authors and reviewers nothing or almost nothing, 
> and publishers say barely a word in their defense.  Why? 
> Because to acknowledge (the truth) that many editors receive 
> small sums and a lucky few princely payments would encourage 
> more editors to demand more, and the more they get, to the 
> extent that this fact is publicized, the more they will demand. 
> Thus publishers conceal the information because it is better to 
> be misunderstood than to be poor.
>
> The value of the information as to what is actually going on 
> disappears when the information is widely available. 
> Sometimes information gains in value when it is widely shared 
> (e.g., advertising), sometimes the value is in withholding it 
> from others.  Think about buying or selling a stock: Should you 
> share what you know?  Open Access advocates may like to add 
> this item to their simulations.
>
> Anthony Watkinson is of course correct on the point about 
> editorial remuneration, though why he should become a turncoat 
> to the brotherhood of self-interested publishers, I cannot 
> imagine. You shall not dine on the flesh of authors this 
> season, Anthony!
>
> Joe Esposito