From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:46:33 -0500

I agree with Chuck on this point.  The aggregations of multiple journals
allows editorially weaker publications to slip into the package.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:43 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:47:51 +0000
> Joe Esposito said:
>
> But commoditization through the author-pays model will lead
> to pressure to lower quality.  Some may find this acceptable; many
> will not.
>
> On the other hand, competition for the toll-access model leads to
> higher editorial quality.
> ________________________________________
>
> I'd like to take issue with these statements. With the funding situation
> for major publishers being driven by the big deal and its innumerable
> permutations, in fact publisher's are finding ways to use the toll access
> model to fund start ups and take overs without purchasing decisions
> normal feedback loop. The norm for "Take overs" is the new publisher
> gets to count that as pure revenue increase without any loss when a
> take over moves to the new publisher. Another instance of market
> feedback opportunity gone. (that's the dreaded reconciliaition task
> libraries and publishers go through every year a new ritual to the annual
> reviews. And there is, as far as I can tell no "norm" for new startups.
>
> They can get folded into the regular titles, "free" for a year or some
> other period, then folded into the new base, offered as an addon: the
> permutations are endless, but the bottom line for new startups is
> guaranteed income well in advance of any breakeven point traditionally.
> If anything, the "big deal" for takeovers and startups reduces market
> acceptance/non acceptance signals and uncertainty so the publisher
> makes money more quickly than without the big deal. Risk is being
> reduced in startups, not necessarily a good thing for quality control.
> In the "normal" marketplace the publisher has to wait to see if a title
> will reach crucial mass. That is much less an issue with the various
> ways publishers are gaming the system today. The upshot is that quality
> of "toll-access" models is not a given, in fact may be fading before our
> eyes.
>
> Chuck Hamaker
> UNC Charlotte