Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:16:49 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:38:46 +0000
François Rappaz summarizes my viewpoint with great accuracy: each
article is unique and each article is tied to a particular journal
that, ipso facto, can exercise a monopoly on this article. As a
result, the global set of articles is not a market, but a collection
of micro-monopolies. By owning thousands of titles, large commercial
editors ensure the control of hundreds of thousands of
micro-monopolies and, as a result, can pretty well do what they want
in terms of pricing.
Processes that appear commercial on the surface, can easily turn out
to be non-market driven.
Thank you for the question.
Jean-Claude Guédon
________________________________________
From: RAPPAZ Francois <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:28:37 +0000
JC Guédon: "Librarians have another problem to confront: is it really
their role to support the APC-based form of open access? My answer is
that it is not. [...] If libraries withdrew APC-subsidies, they would
also have more resources to craft open access in better ways,
including the support of pure, APC-free, Gold publishing, presumably
in conjunction with university presses."
Don't you think that APCs, if paid by the authors themselves and not
by a third party, could be a way to bind the publisher's services and
the users of these services ? or is the scholarly publishing
definitely not a market ?
François Rappaz
University of Fribourg
|
|
|