From: "Mittermaier, Bernhard" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:07:01 +0000

Joe, let me try another analogy:

Do you agree that there is a significant contribution of a teacher to
a pupil's examination because pretty much of the pupil's knowledge is
due to the teacher's teaching?

And yes, there are better teacher and not so good ones, and there is a
high probability that the pupils of better teachers have better
examinations than the others.
But even though, would you ever accept a claim of ownership to a
pupil's examination by a teacher stating: "Without me, this pupil
would have never been able to write this examination."?

Now, what do you consider higher: The publisher's contribution to an
author's article or the teacher's contribution to an pupil's
knowledge, expressed by an examination?

Best regards,
Bernhard

###########################################
Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier
Forschungszentrum Jülich
Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Date:    Sun, 15 Dec 2013 09:45:16 -0500
From:    LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Elsevier's Unforced Error

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:50:11 -0500

Sorry you don't find the bauxite analogy illuminating, but let's heed
Joan Baez:  "Then give me another word for it/You who are so good with
words":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMHSbcd_qI

And whatever metaphor you choose, please answer the question of how it
is if publishers add no value, as Chuck, implied, why are some
publishers so much more successful than others?  I would have thought
that when you multiply by zero, you get zero.

As for Jennifer Howard's question to Alicia Wise, I should mention
that I have never met Wise. I would expect her to distance herself
from the analogy, as any publisher would.  Keeping authors happy is
what publishers do.

Joe Esposito