LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:16:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2