From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:50:03 -0500
Jean-Claude Guedon mischaracterizes my post. I was not (and am not)
advocating regulatory review of the Max Planck initiative. I am asking
if it is likely to happen. This is a material consideration for people
who might be involved in working on such a project, especially if they
are not covered by institutional liability policies that pay for legal
representation.
Joe Esposito
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:41:30 +0000
>
> Joseph Esposito's remark is really weird if we think about the fact
> that we live in the context of a tight oligopoly of a few commercial
> publishers. But that seems to be all right, at least to him!
>
> On the other hand, when some librarians and researchers join together
> for a quiet strategy meeting, the threat of antitrust is immediately
> raised. And I mean "threat". Amazing!
>
> Does anyone on this list remember professor Barschall who was sued
> (under anti-trust provisions) in four countries for displaying
> accurate comparative figures of publishing costs for a set of physics
> journals. Gordon and Breach was behind this, in personal terms, cruel
> move. Gordon and Breach lost everywhere. With deep pockets, they
> annoyed Barschall literally to death for between ten and twelve years.
> It all stopped only when Wiley took over Gordon & Breach.
>
> Orwell's notion that some are more equal than others is turning out to
> be ever more accurate.
>
> As for the possible relationship between ethics and profit seeking, I
> will the readers judge.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:33:16 -0500
>
> I would be interested to know from lawyers familiar with antitrust
> issues whether this development may face legal challenges.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:59:50 -0500
> >
> > Berlin 12 Conference Focuses on Proposal to Flip Subscription Journals
> > to Open Access
> >
> > Reporte by Kathleen Shearer. Association of Research Libraries
> > Partnership Consultant
> >
> > "On December 8 and 9, 2015, representatives from several regions
> > (Asia, Europe, and North America) met in Berlin, Germany, to discuss a
> > proposal to flip subscription-based journals to open access models.
> > The initiative is being led by the Max Planck Society, the organizer
> > and host of the invitation-only Berlin 12 Open Access Conference. The
> > rationale for the initiative is based on an analysis undertaken by Max
> > Planck Digital Library (MPDL), which found that a flip to open access
> > would be possible at no financial risk, “maybe even at lower overall
> > costs” to the system.
> >
> > "The objective of the conference was to build a consensus for an
> > internationally coordinated effort to shift libraries’ journal budgets
> > away from subscriptions and towards article processing costs (APCs).
> > The meeting was attended by 96 participants from 19 countries, with
> > several US and Canadian representatives. The major point of discussion
> > was an expression of interest (EOI) that would form the basis for
> > gaining support and moving forward with the initiative. Once
> > published, organizations will be invited to sign the EOI and it will
> > be used to galvanize interest in the initiative around the world."
> >
> > Ms. Shearer's full report is found at:
> >
> > http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/2015.12.18-Berlin12Report.pdf
> >
> > Interesting to read about what may be be an underlying difference
> > between the US and other countries on the matter of conversion to open
> > access. At least some US representatives seek a transition in which
> > there are real reductions in the costs of the scholarly publications
> > system and assert that a key to success is greater competition in that
> > system. The Max Planck proposal appears to be more straightforward --
> > a swap (flip) of subscription payments for models that assure open access.
|
