LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:43 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (964 bytes) , text/html (2378 bytes)
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:18:48 -0700

Here is a good source for the formal complaint filed on 26 October regarding
RELX and the wider scholarly publishing market to the EU competition
authority <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html>.  Full text
(22pp) PDF available -- https://zenodo.org/record/1472045#.W9iP5hNKjOR
 (My thanks to Gary Price's invaluable infoDOCKET for the link.)

The complaint is partisan, no question, but represents to my eye a serious
and coherent attempt to make the case for why big journal publishing can be
interpreted as importantly marked by anti-competitive practices.  The
complaint is short, but not negligible, on practical remedies (pp. 20-21).
In an environment where rhetoric and posturing often prevail in discussions
of the topic, this one was refreshing.  I hope that the respondents to this
complaint can answer publicly with equal coherence and intelligence.

Jim O'Donnell
Arizona State University


ATOM RSS1 RSS2