From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:32:23 -0500

The analysis becomes more complicated when the publisher is a
university press like Anthony's former employer Oxford.  Loss of
income to it affects costs elsewhere in the university. In OUP's case,
this might mean a smaller return to the university's general operating
fund out of OUP surpluses. For smaller, subsidized presses, it means
increasing the press's subsidy. Either way, there is an impact on
other parts of the university's budget.  (I expect this is one reason
that OUP is participating in the suit against Georgia State.)

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:25:10 +0000
>
> Dear Anthony,
>
> Who is losing out by this "complete removal of a source of income"?
> The taxpayer is not losing out because the pharma companies pay taxes,
> taxes which pay for the toll-free access to publicly-funded research
> outputs. The pharma companies are not freeloading upon the economies
> of the countries in which they are based (or if they are it is not
> because of the availability of free journals). The benefit that the
> pharma companies receive from open access contribute to economic
> growth in the same way as the benefit that any commercial company
> receives from OA contributes to economic growth. Publicly-funded
> research does not lose out because research institutions would not
> have received any income from the money paid for journals by the
> pharma companies. So are the publishers of the journals previously
> purchased by the pharma companies the only stakeholders losing out? If
> so, forgive me if I do not shed any tears over their loss.
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:58:02 +0100
>
>> From what I know of David's career in publishing, I do not imagine he
>
> has ever had to make a decision to give up a source of income which
> for some publishers ( probably not T&F ) is important for some
> journals, and it is a long time since I might have been involved.
>
> I wonder what he would do? Perhaps he could tell us - hypothetically
> of course. What to me is interesting is the lack of discussion about
> the complete removal of a source of income to the the scholarly
> communication process from big pharma (users rather than contributors
> of papers) under an OA scenario. Freeloading or free riding used to be
> much discussed.
>
> Anthony
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 31 Mar 2013, at 19:12, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:51:49 +0000
>>
>>  Having discovered that the majority of authors do not approve of the
>>  commercial reuse of their work will Taylor & Francis now suspend the
>>  selling of reprints to third-parties?
>>
>>  David