Re: ALPSP Maximising your Secondary Rights, London 12/7/11

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

But that is just the problem, isn't it, Joe?  if parts of the 
system of scholarly communication work at cross purposes from 
each other--as i have argued they do in many different ways among 
just libraries, P&T committees, and librarians, each pursuing its 
own "rational" self-interest--then the system ends up as 
dysfunctional. Commercial publishers are out to make a profit 
first and foremost, and if their actions have untoward 
consequences for universities, they need not worry about 
them--unless and until those consequences come back to bite them 
in their profit margins. Top university administrators, however, 
should be worrying about these irrationalities at the system 
level and trying to do something about them. So far, it seems to 
me, they have attacked one problem or another in isolation from 
each other--e.g., advocating OA for journal publishing--without 
looking at how the whole system operates as a collectivity of 
different actors with multiple and often conflicting interests.

Sandy Thatcher


>Fred,
>
>As you well know, there is no likelihood that prices will be
>lowered unless (a) a lower price would bring in a new class of
>customer, thus increasing overall profit or (b) a lower price is
>the only alternative open to a publisher who otherwise faces a
>cancellation.
>
>I remain perplexed by the thrust of this discussion.  I maintain
>that every member of this list would be making the very same
>decisions that the publishers they love to hate are making, with
>allowances for differing opinions about the best brand
>management.  It's hard for me to say that Elsevier or Wiley is
>"immoral" when I would be doing pretty much the same things as
>they are if I sat there and had their acumen.    We really have
>to get beyond talking about good guys and bad guys and think
>about different institutions acting in their own interests, which
>are often hostile to one another.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM, FrederickFriend
><ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>  My thanks to Joe and to Pippa for their clarifications of the
>>  term "secondary rights". Joe's last two examples do in fact go
>>  into territory which can cause not only librarians but also
>>  teachers and researchers some concern. Many in the academic
>>  community do not feel that they should have to pay publishers for
>>  use in teaching of articles they and their colleagues have
>>  written. It is a basic feature of teaching that you introduce
>>  your students to the latest research, and it goes against the
>>  grain to have to pay for such re-use.
>>
>>  Also, I can understand payment being justified if a
>>  computer-indexed database of articles is sold for profit, but
>>  there are many such possible re-uses which help to improve
>>  research productivity and which do not involve anybody making a
>>  profit from the re-use of research reports, for example using
>>  techniques such as text-mining. I still feel that this is
>>  sensitive territory. Maybe if librarians, researchers and
>>  teachers could see the price increases being reduced because of
>>  the income from secondary rights we would not be as suspicious,
>>  but there is no visible relationship at present, so it just looks
>>  like more exploitation of the academic community.
>>
>>  Fred Friend