From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:35:54 -0500

This is just wrong, Chuck.  I don't know how else to say it.  Yes,
there is more money spent on research than on publishing, but the
publishing component is borne mostly by the publisher.  That is
reflected in the price of publications.

Still, the question is not whether authors and reviewers should be
paid (why not? Though it would increase prices), but why is it that
some publishers are so much more successful than others if publishers
add so little value?

I poke around the inside of publishing companies all the time, and the
differences among them is extraordinary.  How can someone do a better
job if the job is negligible to begin with?

I repeat what I said earlier:  This does not mean that libraries
should not try to get better pricing or that they should feel sorry
for publishers.  It's simply to say that many library strategies to
offset publishers' influence (and pricing) are based on incorrect
assumptions, which weakens their effectiveness.

The dead horse has  been beaten.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:40:41 +0000
>
> Joe Esposito says:
> "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?"
>
> Joe, if that's what you've taken from what I've said that isn't what I
> intended. I've been pretty vocal on the importance of version of
> record. Am stalwartly behind peer review, which afterall publishers
> organize.
>
> I think I've been pretty consistent in support of those functions.
> They seem to me to be the hallmarks of publisher expertise, add in
> savy about choosing an excellent editor, name recognition on an ed
> board, and lots of money to go to conferences and "find" the authors
> doing the research....
>
> But Peer review is done for free (not as someone suggested for pay) by
> researchers themselves,
>
> The version of record is IMO critical and in my experience with major
> publishers it is primarily the author's responsibility to geti the
> text right. I've spent countless hours correcting those darned
> citations! And corrections to text in my experience have been pretty
> much frowned upon by publishers, they don't like changes much.
> Publishers do the fancy look stuff-or hire it out.
>
> But all the other stuff, the REAL cost of an article is in the
> research, the researcher's and author's time, salary of the author,
> lab equipment.  As Peggy Hoon so eloquently pointed out, all the costs
> are elsewhere and the publisher gets the gold wonka bar?
> Strange system.
>
> Just trying to clarify.
>
> Chuck Hamaker