From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:08:08 +0000

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never, never said that cooperation
between libraries and publishers (or any other partners) was either
impossible or undesirable.  I know there are many, many great
examples, some of which I have been involved with (on both sides of
the publisher/library fence).

As I recall, this discussion started as a difference of opinion
between: (a) those who believe that all of the stakeholders in the
scholarly communications process have essentially the same drivers and
goals and that any apparent conflict is just a result of the
stakeholders not sufficiently understanding each other; and (b) those
who believe that while there is some overlap in drivers and goals,
there are cases where the drivers and goals not only diverge, but are
in conflict.

Obviously, I am in the (b) camp.  That doesn’t mean that I believe
that librarians, publishers and others can’t work together for the
betterment of scholarship.  But it does mean that I think that we need
to be realistic and go into our conversations with our eyes open and a
realisation that we may want very different things from the
conversations.  Richard makes the (b) camp case very well when he says
'we have to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very
different aims and motivations.’

My point about ‘vision’ contains a question for members of the (a)
camp: what would be different if us ‘partisans’ in the library
community were a little less beastly to the publishers?  Would big
deal prices be lower? Would green OA embargoes be shorter? Would
publishers stop lobbying against copyright reform to allow greater
text ad data mining? Would sharing policies be more liberal?  What
would be different to what we see today?

David


On 23 Jul 2015, at 05:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Richard Brown <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:59:17 -0400

David,

I second Karin's comments and Scott's good post. And I would add that
there are numerous examples of engagement and collaboration between
libraries and scholarly publishers, certainly university presses, some
of which Michael Zeoli of YBP mentioned in a recent post. These do not
represent a fully-formed vision of the kind of "blissful cooperation"
you suggest because everyone involved recognizes that genuine
cooperation is hard work and full of compromises and trade-offs--and
ongoing conversation, as challenging and frustrating as that may be.
We'll never reach nirvana. We're not talking about bliss. And we have
to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very different
aims and motivations. But progress requires hope, not cynicism. BTW,
the Association of American University Presses issued a report on
library-press collaborations in 2013, and here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/olxvuj4

Richard

Richard Brown, PhD
Director
Georgetown University Press
Washington, DC 20007
[log in to unmask]
www.press.georgetown.edu