From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:33:00 +0100

I have had offline interaction with Sandy and am in a position to go
into this point further at least as far as the UK is concerned. I am
writing and should have finished months ago a chapter on journals in
the twentieth century for a multi-volume history of the book in the
UK. Before WWII there was little change. There were four
organisational players. These were the learned societies (mostly
working with publishing partners) trusts/foundations (likewise)
commercial publishers such as Macmillan and the two big university
presses. It was (to say the least) not a very dynamic scene and mostly
journals were regarded as a drain on resources and not real publishing
by the last two categories. Science journals and science in general is
(I would suggest) regarded as not really part of the business of
scholarship by many AAUP members.

After the war English replaced German as the language of scholarship
but the opportunities were not taken up by any of these players. The
players who answered the need were actually mainly German immigrants
(usually Jewish). Commercial publishing in Germany had always had a
dominant role if compared with the UK and the US. The growth in
journals and journals more responsive to the needs of scientIsts came
not just from Pergamon Press but also the British companies of Wiley
and Academic. Elsevier of course came into play a little later. During
this period CUP and OUP did very little. As I worked for both Academic
(from 1971) and OUP (from 1982) I can claim personal knowledge of
these developments, but there is some literature also.

Anthony Watkinson


On 26 Jun 2012, at 03:28, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:43:45 -0500
>
> It would also have been a more sensible option if universities had
> supported their own publishing infrastructure more in the first place
> and not allowed commercial publishers to establish such a dominant
> position in STM journal publishing. In the immediate postwar years
> that was still a live option. Administrative myopia helped create the
> conditions that Kevin deplores.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:11:35 +0000
>>
>> So what is the current scenario?  Major research university gives away
>> it intellectual property, to publishers, has to buy it back at very
>> high cost, then cuts faculty for lack of funding.  What is ridiculous
>> is that anyone could seriously maintain that OA is not a more sensible
>> option.
>>
>> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
>> Director of Scholarly Communication
>> Duke University
>> Perkins Library
>> Durham, NC 27708
>>
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>  From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>>>  Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700
>>>
>>>  It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as
>>>  though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue
>>>  projections.  Does everyone really think the world does not change
>>>  from time to time?  It is simply not in a research university's
>>>  interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor.  Most
>>>  research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the
>>>  interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the
>>>  corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the
>>  > research.  There is a total absence of strategic thinking here.
>>  >
>>  > So what's the scenario?  Major research university X gives away its
>>  > intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding.
>>>
>>>  Ridiculous.
>>>
>>>  Joe Esposito