From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 14:32:39 +0000

For those who do not have access to this article, one sentence is
worth reading: "Given these trends, one must ask whether our journal
system is adequately serving enough of the researchers who live in the
'publish or perish' ethos that we have created and whether copyright
in today's scholarly publishing world is serving its original purpose"

As for the accusation of ignorance of economics rather ungracefully
hurled at our colleague Kevin Smith,  I could add that resorting to
dubious economic strategies such as tying the "value" of an object to
its brand or branding capacity - we just celebrated the 20th
anniversary of No Logo by Naomi Klein, incidentally - rather than to
its production costs offers a perfectly good reason for expressing
skepticism to the notion of economics as a "science". The "dismal
science" of economics is often so described because it can also be
perceived as a rhetorical instrument designed to manipulate public
opinion. Too often, an economist appears to act exactly like a Roman
haruspex, endlessly peering into some market future (like the entrails
of a dead bird) while ruminating about uncertainties... The modern
economist adds a rather dizzying ability for word play, in particular
with the word "value".

Finally, although I have not checked the fact, the whole article may
well be available on Sci-Hub. :-)

Jean-Claude Guédon

On 2019-08-15 6:51 p.m., LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:26:46 -0400

Comparing the price of a scholarly publication, with an audience
numbered in the hundreds, with a NY Times bestseller, with an audience
of hundreds of thousands, reveals a lack of understanding of
economics.

Individuals can get "Learned Publishing" by joining the Society for
Scholarly Publishing for $180. That gets you not only the article in
question but the entire journal, which is available to SSP members as
part of an arrangement with ALPSP.  SSP has other benefits for members
as well, including its support for "The Scholarly Kitchen," that
beacon of truth and justice. "Kitchen" contributors include librarians
(e.g., Lisa Hinchliffe, Rick Anderson).

Joe Esposito

Joseph J. Esposito
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:58 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 13:02:36 +0000
>
> Paywalled indeed.  My own situation vis-à-vis this article is telling, I think.  We had to cancel our Wiley “big deal” last year because we could no longer afford it.  Learned Publishing is not among the comparatively small number of Wiley titles we retained.  A PDF of the individual article would cost me $42, almost three times more than what the latest NYT bestseller would cost me on Amazon.  In itself, this illustrates the market failures that have led to the development of ResearchGate and SciHub, and it is because they are fighting against a collapsing market that these lawsuits are futile.
>
> Interestingly, if Professor Manley has published in a traditional law review, his article would quite likely be more widely available, since they are virtually all open.
>
> Kevin Smith
> University of Kansas
>
> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 15:50:07 -0700
>
> Stewart Manley of the law faculty at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur has an interesting new article in Learned Publishing: "On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci-Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University," doi: 10.1002/leap.1254 (probably paywalled for many).  He assesses the effect on real world behavior of recent lawsuits advanced and won against institutions pressing forward with open access strategies by major publishers.  He gives these "key points":
>
> The 2017 Sci-Hub judgment has, to date, proven unenforceable, and it appears that enforcing the 2019 OMICS judgment will similarly prove challenging.
> Business developments and changing expectations over sharing digital content may also undermine the impact of the ongoing cases against ResearchGate and Georgia State University.
> Stakeholders should consider these limitations when deciding how to resolve scholarly publishing disputes.
>
> It's not unprecedented that attempts at definitive action/direction through political/legal institutions may be rendered irrelevant by adjustments in the behavior of stakeholders pursuing their own interests.  In this case it makes the author optimistic that moves toward open access will in fact prevail in spite of legal defeats or restrictions.
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU