From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:06:26 -0400

I quite agree with Sandy. In fact, one of the more potent prospects is
to see libraries redistribute part of their subscription money with
university presses in a consortial context) to build a different
communication system which could then be non-APC Gold. Meanwhile,
library repositories could also link up in a consortium and start
providing interesting services to authors, such as new forms of
visibility, article-based evaluations, rather than title-based
evaluations, etc.

There are so many resources within academe. Why outsource when we can
do the job fairly ourselves, once we learn how to network effectively.

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mardi 14 juillet 2015 à 20:31 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :

From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:09:53 -0500

One would hope that at least one kind of publisher, the university
press, shares the overarching values and priorities of academic
librarians and scholars. There are prominent examples of them working
together in enterprises like Project Muse, and in some instances the
library and press are in the same administrative unit, and faculty are
involved with all presses as members of their editorial boards.  These
relationships do not mean that there cannot be disagreements, such as
over copyright, but when push comes to shove, university presses have
more in common with the people on their own campuses than they do with
commercial publishers whose priorities ultimately are driven by the
need to make profits.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:41:26 -0400
>
> Hear, hear, David! The notion that publishers/libraries/scholarly are
> close relatives is completely fanciful. Anyone who has attended a
> negotiation session with a commercial publisher knows how tough and
> hard-nosed it is.
>
> The device of "high impact journal" which transfers the evaluation of
> quality from content to journal title is the key element allowing the
> publishers to keep a vise on the academic world. So long as university
> administrators subscribe (in more ways than one) to the notion that
> they can evaluate their researchers in this fashion, they should not
> complain about high prices, because that is what the device was meant
> to achieve.
>
> As for librarians, they should carefully consider whether maintaining
> "good relations with the vendors" (as the former CRKN director used to
> advocate) is the right path to follow. How about "good relations with
> the faculty"? At the Université de Montréal, when our library broke
> the Big Deal with Wiley, several of us worked hard to ensure faculty
> support: that entailed educating faculty about the realities of
> scientific publishing, and our argument was: the library is not the
> enemy; the big, multinational, publishers are the enemy.
>
> It worked! Our head librarian has retained his position and a new
> collaboration is emerging between the libraries and the faculty,
> including the Faculty union.
>
> Finally, publishers are an extraordinarily heterogeneous lot. Beyond
> the multinational "baddies", you encounter a motley crew of
> association publishers, some behaving correctly, others less so, and
> beyond that, you have the long tail of small publishers who may end up
> being a small coterie of academics with some local help. Let us
> concentrate our fire on the few, multinational, baddies and the rogue
> scientific associations, and let us see how we can repatriate
> publishing capacity within academe. That would save 40% from the cost
> (40% is roughly the profit rate of the "baddies"), and we might even
> find ways to help the small publishers (e.g. many of the non-APC OA
> journals found in DOAJ).
>
> The points to remember are:
>
> 1. Publishing is an integral part of the research life cycle.
>
> 2. Research is subsidized. Research, for the last four centuries has
> been systematically unsustainable, but that is normal for an
> intellectual infrastructure.
>
> 3. Publishing research costs a small fraction (1-2%) of research.
>
> 4. Ergo, scientific publishing costs (not profits) should be covered
> by research money.
>
> 5. The issue  then is to ensure editorial freedom and quality in this
> subsidized system. A good way to move in the right direction is to
> systematically internationalize the editorial functions, and the means
> of financial support.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon