From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:17:28 +0000
As far as I know, over the past 10 years there has been no suggestion
that the SCOAP3 project would fall of foul to anti-trust issues. This
‘flipping’ programme looks, in many ways, like SCOAP3 writ large. Of
course, SCOAP3 covers only a very small number of publishers, but
would it be difficult to make an anti-trust case if even a small
number of publishers have been enjoying revenues from similar
programmes over the past few years?
David
On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:35, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:50:03 -0500
>
> Jean-Claude Guedon mischaracterizes my post. I was not (and am not)
> advocating regulatory review of the Max Planck initiative. I am asking
> if it is likely to happen. This is a material consideration for people
> who might be involved in working on such a project, especially if they
> are not covered by institutional liability policies that pay for legal
> representation.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:41:30 +0000
>>
>> Joseph Esposito's remark is really weird if we think about the fact
>> that we live in the context of a tight oligopoly of a few commercial
>> publishers. But that seems to be all right, at least to him!
>>
>> On the other hand, when some librarians and researchers join together
>> for a quiet strategy meeting, the threat of antitrust is immediately
>> raised. And I mean "threat". Amazing!
>>
>> Does anyone on this list remember professor Barschall who was sued
>> (under anti-trust provisions) in four countries for displaying
>> accurate comparative figures of publishing costs for a set of physics
>> journals. Gordon and Breach was behind this, in personal terms, cruel
>> move. Gordon and Breach lost everywhere. With deep pockets, they
>> annoyed Barschall literally to death for between ten and twelve years.
>> It all stopped only when Wiley took over Gordon & Breach.
>>
>> Orwell's notion that some are more equal than others is turning out to
>> be ever more accurate.
>>
>> As for the possible relationship between ethics and profit seeking, I
>> will the readers judge.
>>
>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:33:16 -0500
>>
>> I would be interested to know from lawyers familiar with antitrust
>> issues whether this development may face legal challenges.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:59:50 -0500
>>>
>>> Berlin 12 Conference Focuses on Proposal to Flip Subscription Journals
>>> to Open Access
>>>
>>> Reporte by Kathleen Shearer. Association of Research Libraries
>>> Partnership Consultant
>>>
>>> "On December 8 and 9, 2015, representatives from several regions
>>> (Asia, Europe, and North America) met in Berlin, Germany, to discuss a
>>> proposal to flip subscription-based journals to open access models.
>>> The initiative is being led by the Max Planck Society, the organizer
>>> and host of the invitation-only Berlin 12 Open Access Conference. The
>>> rationale for the initiative is based on an analysis undertaken by Max
>>> Planck Digital Library (MPDL), which found that a flip to open access
>>> would be possible at no financial risk, “maybe even at lower overall
>>> costs” to the system.
>>>
>>> "The objective of the conference was to build a consensus for an
>>> internationally coordinated effort to shift libraries’ journal budgets
>>> away from subscriptions and towards article processing costs (APCs).
>>> The meeting was attended by 96 participants from 19 countries, with
>>> several US and Canadian representatives. The major point of discussion
>>> was an expression of interest (EOI) that would form the basis for
>>> gaining support and moving forward with the initiative. Once
>>> published, organizations will be invited to sign the EOI and it will
>>> be used to galvanize interest in the initiative around the world."
>>>
>>> Ms. Shearer's full report is found at:
>>>
>>> http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/2015.12.18-Berlin12Report.pdf
>>>
>>> Interesting to read about what may be be an underlying difference
>>> between the US and other countries on the matter of conversion to open
>>> access. At least some US representatives seek a transition in which
>>> there are real reductions in the costs of the scholarly publications
>>> system and assert that a key to success is greater competition in that
>>> system. The Max Planck proposal appears to be more straightforward --
>>> a swap (flip) of subscription payments for models that assure open access.
|
