Re: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Once again David Prosser writes a misleading post.

Publications are not using OA to encourage wider readership. 
They are using the equity of their branded publications, which 
are almost in every instance (PLOS is the leading exception) 
traditional in their economics, to promote certain ideas and 
articles.  This is called marketing.  The form it takes is 
product sampling.  The articles being released without charge are 
intended to lead readers back to the originating publisher.  OA 
has nothing to do with it.  I suppose when John D. Rockefeller 
handed out dimes to children, some people thought he was giving 
away his fortune.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options

> Joe, really what am I misrepresenting?  I said publications are
> making their papers open access to encourage wider readership.
> That's exactly what has happened.
>
> You make the trivial point that it is easier for a branded
> publication to attract attention than an unbranded publication.
> Very true.  But that is not an OA issue, it's a branding issue.
> A new subscription-based journal from a new publisher will find
> it difficult to generate an audience.  A new subscription-based
> journal from a well-known (branded) publisher might find it
> easier.  Is it easier from a new OA journal to find an audience
> than a new subscription journal, all other things being equal?
> That is an interesting question, but not the issue I was
> addressing.
>
> Best wishes
>
> David Prosser
> Director, SPARC Europe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
> Sent: 10 October 2008 22:10
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options
>
> This of course is not what is happening.  David Prosser entirely
> misrepresents the situation.
>
> Material that is associated with a well-regarded brand that is
> subsequently made OA will indeed find a broader readership. This
> is why high-profile journals with embargoes appear to work in OA
> format, because the brand has pushed the articles into the
> consciousness of the prospective readership.
>
> The issue for readership of OA is how to claim that attention in
> the absence of such a brand. It can be done:  PLOS is entirely OA
> and hugely successful because of the astonishing marketing of the
> program.  But start with an unbranded OA publication and you are
> at the mercy of the keywords people type into Google.  This kind
> of OA--pure OA, without the helping hand of an established
> brand--is "post and forget" publishing.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options
>
>> Sally Morris wrote:
>>
>> 'The publisher, ALPSP, has made both articles open access because
>> of their importance.'
>>
>> It's interesting that we have had two practical examples in two
>> days of publishers accepting that subscription-based models limit
>> the readership of papers and that the solution to that problem is
>> open access.  This is counter to the rhetoric that some have put
>> forward that under the subscription model there is no real unmet
>> demand for papers.
>>
>> (The other example was the papers from this year's Physics
>> Nobelists.)
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> David C Prosser
>> Director, SPARC Europe