From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:58:13 +0000
There is a massive jump from a question about a specific sales channel to
an assertion about all sales channels. But I think we all understand the
rhetorical intent behind the jump.
OA does not give a free pass to corporate entities - maybe it is different
in the US, but certainly in the UK there is a significant amount of funding
for research coming from industry. Smaller than from government grants
certainly, but UK university finance directors would dispute Joe's claim
that they 'little or no part' in financing research.
But even if they did have a free pass, would governments be concerned? If
you read what governments say about why they fund universities and the
research that they do there is a lot about supporting industry and
innovation, economic security, encouraging start-ups and small and medium
enterprises. (See, for example, the UKRI Vision, Mission, and Values page
-
https://www.ukri.org/about-us/strategic-prospectus/vision-mission-and-values/).
If that is a major driver for pumping billions into research then open
access isn't a free pass but a key enabler.
David
Vision, Mission and Values - UK Research and Innovation
<https://www.ukri.org/about-us/strategic-prospectus/vision-mission-and-values/>
www.ukri.org
Vision, Mission and Values. Human civilisations have been shaped by their
ability to generate and use knowledge. Knowledge is a cultural good and
applying it wisely is vital to our health, wealth, wellbeing and resilience.
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:01:15 -0500
David Prosser said: "I don’t think that I know of any academic librarian
who believes 'that they are the only customers for peer-reviewed research
material’. We obviously talk to different people."
I was responding to the comment on this very thread:
"Can you point to purchasers of "big deal" packages other than
academic/research libraries?"
The ten-year-old data that Prosser cites may still be true today. I simply
don't know. My own sample comes from organizations with which I have
worked. A generalization: organizations with the most diversified revenue
streams have the highest operating margins.
I believe my point holds: OA gives a free pass to organizations, many of
which are commercial entities (and some of which are among the very
largest), that have little or no role in the financing of the underlying
research.
Joe Esposito
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:05 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:04:38 +0000
I don’t think that I know of any academic librarian who believes 'that they
are the only customers for peer-reviewed research material’. We obviously
talk to different people.
The latest STM report on the state of publishing quotes estimates that:
"Academic libraries have traditionally been the primary source of journal
revenues, estimated at 68-75% of the total. Other revenue sources include
corporate subscriptions (15-17%), advertising (4%), membership fees and
personal subscriptions (3%) and various author side payments (3%)"
But this is from a ten-year-old report and things may have changed.
David
On 12 Nov 2018, at 14:07, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:57:46 -0500
Adam,
If I understand your question correctly, it should be pointed out that many
publishers sell large packages (aka "Big Deals") to corporate accounts.
Corporations do not purchase materials as widely as universities, though in
many cases they purchase materials with what one could call greater
intensity by working with business research firms that do not sell their
content to academic institutions. I have never seen a thoroughly convincing
analysis of what are known as "sales by channel," but only humanities
publishers find all of their customers at universities. For some STM
publishers the percentage of academic sales is as low as 30%. Most STM
publishers have about 40-60% of their revenue coming from academic
accounts.
I am baffled why academic librarians seem to think that they are the only
customers for peer-reviewed research material. I am also perplexed by
librarians' interest in OA, since OA materials go to corporations for free.
Plan S, to take one of many examples, is a gift to the likes of Exxon
Mobil, Dupont, Google, and Aetna.
Joe Esposito
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 5:13 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:41:53 +0000
Hi Rick,
There's nothing intrinsically illegal about a cartel.
Can you point to purchasers of "big deal" packages other than
academic/research libraries?
Adam
________________________________________
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:17:26 +0000
Adam, what cartel are you referring to? Are publishers colluding with each
other to exert illegal control over a market?
Also, what monopsony are you referring to? A monopsony is a situation in
which there’s only one buyer for a product. I can’t think of any publisher
that is in such a position.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:44:34 +0000
And rather than monopoly, we should be looking at a cartel's ability to
exploit a monopsony.
Adam Siegel
Business, Economics, and Agricultural and Resource Economics Librarian
University Library
University of California, Davis
Davis CA 95616
http://people.lib.ucdavis.edu/~apsiegel/
[SNIP]
|
