From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:04:05 -0600

I presume these comments here are limited to journal publishing. The
"value added" in academic book publishing, while perhaps not well
known except by authors who have experienced it first hand, is
substantial and far-reaching, as I tried to document for just one area
of scholarly publishing, acquisitions:

http://www.psupress.org/news/pdf/THEVAL~1.PDF.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:00:47 +0000
>
> Clay Shirky once wrote that "Publishing used to be a process, now it
> is a button."  So perhaps the analogy that Joe is looking for is with
> that "publish" button found on so many websites.
>
> Honestly, however, I think Shirky's reduction is as mistaken as
> Esposito's over-aggrandizement.  The best way to evaluate the value
> added by academic publishers is to ask the authors of the content
> those publishers publish.  By the way, those authors are seldom very
> happy with their publishers; they are often quite angry.  So if the
> publishers' job is to keep authors happy, they are very bad at it.
>
> Generally academic authors think publishers add value is two ways.
> The first is in printing, marketing and distribution.  This, of
> course, is the aspect of publishing that has become a button, and the
> desperation that some publishers feel over the loss of this most
> visible and prominent value they add is evidenced by Joe's ridiculous
> hyperbole.
>
> The second value that academic authors think they get from publishers
> today is reputation, the journal "brand."  In essence, publishing has
> become an intellectual property trade --  authors surrender their
> copyrights in exchange for a trademark.  We have seen, however, in the
> rising number of retractions, in the attention to predatory publishing
> practices, and in the criticism leveled at the impact factor, that the
> value of traditional journal brands is, to some extent, eroding.
>
> The future of academic publishing, and I do believe it has a future,
> is in the services it can provide on both ends of the transaction --
> to authors and to readers.  It is not clear to me that the traditional
> publishers of scholarship, especially those most tied to large-scale
> commercial transactions, will be best placed to provide the services
> that will support publishing in the digital age.  But whoever does
> fill those roles -- and the services are likely to become
> disaggregated -- they will achieve their importance by listening to
> what authors and readers really want, not by bandying about analogies.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
> Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC  27708
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:50:11 -0500
>
> Sorry you don't find the bauxite analogy illuminating, but let's heed
> Joan Baez:  "Then give me another word for it/You who are so good with
> words":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMHSbcd_qI
>
> And whatever metaphor you choose, 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?  I would have thought
> that when you multiply by zero, you get zero.
>
> As for Jennifer Howard's question to Alicia Wise, I should mention
> that I have never met Wise. I would expect her to distance herself
> from the analogy, as any publisher would.  Keeping authors happy is
> what publishers do.
>
> Joe Esposito