From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:17:07 -0400

No one is forcing faculty members to do unpaid peer reviews.

Faculty/university employment practices value published reviews, for
promotion and tenure decisions.

Publishers had no/minimal role in developing that process. But I
acknowledge that they do benefit from it.

If, as a class faculty refused to do the unpaid work, publishers would cave
and pay modest fees (as some do already), and the increased costs would be
reflected in higher subscription costs.

Many, but not all, universities benefit financially from intercollegiate
sports. Varying on the sport and school.
Participants benefit from personal enjoyment/fulfilment/ social benefits.
Possibly discounted college expenses.  Again, no one is forcing the
athletes to participate.

Eternal/Persistent victimization is getting tiresome.

Dick Gottlieb


*From:* LIBLICENSE
*Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:23 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: The circuitous road towards open access

From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:09:57 -0400

I can't resist asking this perhaps impertinent question: how does
publishers'
exploitation of unpaid faculty labor in peer reviewing to enhance their
profits
differ from American universities' exploitation of unpaid athletes to
enhance
their profits from intercollegiate sports?  In both cases the people
actually
doing the hard labor are being asked to donate their labor for the benefit
of
others who enrich themselves and reap the financial rewards?

Sandy Thatcher