LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:
Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:55:10 -0500
Reply-To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Testing assumptions about the book publishing market
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines) 
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:40:46 -0500

Hello, liblicense-l colleagues.  Here some assumptions arising several
times at ALA-Boston last week.  I realized I don't have enough depth
to validate them (or not).

1.       Assumption:  STM societies don’t publish many (if any?)
books, mostly journals.

2.       Assumption:  HSS societies do publish books/monographs, as
well as journals.

3.       Assumption:  Societies (both STM and HSS) don’t outsource
book publishing to commercial publishers the way they do journals
because there isn’t a big enough margin in it for publishers to want
to do it.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

Best regards, Ann Okerson

ATOM RSS1 RSS2