From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:54:02 -0400

I agree with David.

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:19 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:03:46 +0000
>
> Gosh, I wish this was true.  I wish that we were all just one big
> happy family striving to promote scholarship.  But I don’t think we
> are.  We all have different priorities and drivers and sometimes those
> drivers and priorities clash.  That’s not necessarily anybody’s
> ‘fault' - it is just the way the system works.  But the notion that an
> academic wanting to publish in a high impact journal, a librarian
> worried about the cost of that journal, and the shareholder of a
> commercial publisher wanting to see the profits of that journal
> maximised all share a common ethos is, to me at least, wishful
> thinking.
>
> David
>
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 01:57, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Glushko <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:44:35 +0000
> >
> > I totally take your 'take a swing comment' in the humorous spirit in
> > which I believe it was intended, but it does on some level make me a
> > bit sad.
> >
> > I'd like to think that nearly all of us are doing what we do because
> > we love the academy, we love scholarship, and on some level we want to
> > make the world a better place.  I hope that when we deal with one
> > another we can keep in mind that publishers/libraries/scholarly
> > societies are close relatives.  And while like all families we can
> > duke it out over the dinner table, we are at the end of the day
> > family.  There are PLENTY of constituencies out there with whom we
> > have deeper disagreements than with each other.  I'm reminded of the
> > adage that we often judge ourselves by our intentions and others by
> > their actions; perhaps we should bring empathy to the discussion.
> >
> > I'm hopeful that we can work to find common areas of interest, and
> > that we can all work together to promote those areas.  At our best, we
> > do so much good.  At our worst, our disagreements seem almost
> > sectarian.  If there are any fellow travelers on the list who share
> > this viewpoint, I'd love to talk.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bobby Glushko
> > Head, Scholarly Communications and Copyright
> > University of Toronto Libraries
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:51:49 -0400
> >
> > I don't want to get into the middle of this ongoing dialogue between
> > Kevin Smith and Alicia Wise--though I will say that the persistent
> > politeness is truly surreal.  Really, guys, take a swing at one
> > another. We know you want to!
> >
> > Kevin, however, makes a remark that seems wrong to me.  I don't mean
> > wrong in the sense of factually incorrect, but wrong in the sense that
> > when we look at all those arrows pointing to the future, which one is
> > likely to emerge as the winner? The tragic thing about this game is
> > that we will all be long gone ourselves before the results come in.
> > So we are prophets without a prayer.  This is not as bad as it sounds,
> > inasmuch as, paraphrasing Bob Dole's comment about the Vice
> > Presidency, it's an indoor job and requires no heavy lifting.
> >
> > It's the remark about subscriptions that just doesn't seem right to
> > me.  Everywhere you look in media businesses today, subscriptions are
> > surging.  The subscriptions can be HBO, Netflix, Oyster, Scribd,
> > Audible--this list can go on until it tries the patience of our
> > esteemed moderator.  Meanwhile, even in the tiny little patch of
> > scholarly communications, the revenue earned from subscriptions
> > continues to rise year over year.  The growth may not be what was once
> > promised to Wall Street a decade ago, but there is no evidence that
> > the economic model or the organizations that are built upon that model
> > are fading into irrelevance. Indeed, one of the more intriguing
> > projects I have been involved with the past year applies the
> > subscription model to a variant of Gold open access.  PeerJ's
> > membership model is yet another flavor of this model.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if Kevin or Alicia or anyone else agrees with me or
> > not. All this happens independently of ourselves. The economy is
> > impersonal, human agency is overrated. But it is fun to go to the
> > track and bet on the horses.  Here's $2 on the subscription model to
> > win, and another $2 for Gold OA to place.  Green OA, alas, ends up
> > outside the money.
> >
> > Joe Esposito