Re: New media example

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Steve,

My post was not about open access.  I think the activist doth 
protest too much.

Joe Esposito

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Steve Hitchcock 
<sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Joe,    As you are someone with a strong understanding of the
> business of information, especially for academic information, I
> am surprised your comments below targetting - let's put a name to
> it - open access, don't appear to take account of the following
> factors:
>
> 1 Price variability in which a valid new price is zero,
> non-exclusivity, choice, and value-adding.
>
> 2 Setting aside open access publishing, open access repositories
> are providing a service that is supplementary (i.e. additional)
> to journal publishers, not replacing it (see 1 above).
>
> 3 Open access is not about prices, it's about improving access
> and research productivity. So beyond the very basic provision
> that you refer to below, which has the aim of reducing cost to
> the extent consistent with zero price, any value-adding and
> non-zero pricing to reflect that is valid as well.
>
> I'm pretty sure your approach does not deny any of these
> possibilities. Nobody is expecting an Mtrip-like featured service
> to be open access. If providers wish to offer paid-for and viable
> services with this or any other features, then that is welcome.
> But researchers are expecting the choice of open access to
> versions of papers where the only value added is by the authors.
> There is nothing 'hair shirt' or incongruous about authors,
> repositories and institutions providing that choice.
>
> Steve Hitchcock
> IAM Group, Building 32
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
>
>



----__ListProc__NextPart__1277435716
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006260057483.3284@ares.its.yale.edu>
Content-Description: 

From: Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: New media example
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Steve,

My post was not about open access.  I think the activist doth protest too much.

Joe Esposito

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Steve Hitchcock <sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Joe,    As you are someone with a strong understanding of the
> business of information, especially for academic information, I
> am surprised your comments below targetting - let's put a name to
> it - open access, don't appear to take account of the following
> factors:
>
> 1 Price variability in which a valid new price is zero,
> non-exclusivity, choice, and value-adding.
>
> 2 Setting aside open access publishing, open access repositories
> are providing a service that is supplementary (i.e. additional)
> to journal publishers, not replacing it (see 1 above).
>
> 3 Open access is not about prices, it's about improving access
> and research productivity. So beyond the very basic provision
> that you refer to below, which has the aim of reducing cost to
> the extent consistent with zero price, any value-adding and
> non-zero pricing to reflect that is valid as well.
>
> I'm pretty sure your approach does not deny any of these
> possibilities. Nobody is expecting an Mtrip-like featured service
> to be open access. If providers wish to offer paid-for and viable
> services with this or any other features, then that is welcome.
> But researchers are expecting the choice of open access to
> versions of papers where the only value added is by the authors.
> There is nothing 'hair shirt' or incongruous about authors,
> repositories and institutions providing that choice.
>
> Steve Hitchcock
> IAM Group, Building 32
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
>
>



-- 
Joe Esposito
----__ListProc__NextPart__1277435716--