From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:27:24 -0500

As a university press publisher, I can't tell you how tired I get of
the great lie embedded in "Toll Access requires lower costs because of
its burden of delivering obscene profits to private equity owners...."
 Toll access also allows university presses to earn modest "surpluses"
that for the most part lower deficits otherwise picked up by their
home universities.  I don't know of any cases where those surpluses
could be called obscene by any stretch of the word.  If you can cite a
few, I will stand corrected.  If not, please stop lumping university
presses together with commercial ones.  It exaggerates the differences
between libraries and up's and just makes it that much harder to work
together, which a great many of us in both communities are trying to
do.

Thanks,

Alex Holzman



On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:38:44 +0000
>
> So one example of poor fact-checking in a peer-reviewed Gold OA
> article is evidence that "Gold OA...structurally requires lower
> editorial standards."  That must mean that there has never been an
> error in a Toll-Access journal.
>
> Or is the problem not one of data but rather ideology: "Gold OA
> requires lower costs because the burden of paying for the work rests
> with the producer instead of being spread across all the readers"?
> One could just as easily argue that "Toll Access requires lower costs
> because of its burden of delivering obscene profits to private equity
> owners, and the past decade has taught us that the surest way of
> increasing profits is by lowering costs."
>
> So let's get real: how about looking at real data?  For example, what
> are the kind of corrections that occur between preprints in arXiv and
> the final published version - and are those corrections worth the
> millions that it costs to produce them?  Does anyone know?
>
> Peter Hirtle