From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:40:13 -0700

1.  8,000 signatures is out of how many million scientists?

2.  I don't see a reference to the fact that submissions to
traditional journals are way up.  One publisher I spoke to lately
commented that the review process is driving up costs, which in turn
drives up prices.

3.  Complacency is a bad thing.  Agree.

4.  The "culture of openness" of research: How's that again?  Many
researchers hoard their data.  Often the goal is for the other guy's
stuff to be open.

5.  The number of publishers who have created or are contemplating the
creation of services modelled on PLoS ONE is huge.  It's a great
market opportunity because there is more research than there are
library funds to purchase it. Hence the author is the new customer.
Please see

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1163/1083

from August 2004.

5.  The times they are a-changing.  Yep.

Joe Esposito

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:37:42 -0400
>
> Of possible interest, from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
> Jennifer Howard makes a key point:  the universe of scholarly
> publishing (particularly journals) is changing/has changed in a number
> of ways, from a number of directions, for a number of reasons, and
> success in publishing strategies means recognizing and taking these
> changes into account, sooner than later.
>
> http://chronicle.com/article/Hot-Type-An-Open-Letter-to/131397/
>
> It seems a particularly insightful Letter.  Ann Okerson