From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:26:55 -0700 I have no comment to make about the copyright issues that are raised here, but there are at least two items in Kevin Smith's message that are incorrect. First, it is not true that authors invariably "choose" journals rather than publishers. Some authors pay close attention to the ownership of journals as this can affect such things as the nature of the software platform in use and access to markets. The marketing issue is particularly acute when global markets are taken into account. Some publishers simply have greater reach. Not all authors are aware of this, but some are. There is a reason that an author may wish to publish with Elsevier, Springer, Wiley Blackwell and their ilk, and that is that these publishers do a very good job for authors. This is not to say that smaller publishers do not or cannot do a good job as well, but Elsevier did not get where they are today by being clumsy or hostile to authors' interests. The second error is in saying that authors have no or little choice in where they publish. Presumably the publishers on this list have all picked themselves up after they fell to the ground upon reading that remark. The competition for getting the best authors is so stiff that it is a wonder that brawls do not break out. Some part of this item may be merely rhetorical: What do we mean by "choice"? The best authors have choice, but, by definition, not all authors can be the best--except at Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average. It is also somewhat misleading to talk about submissions. The best authors are courted by editors; editors reach out to them. While many authors submit papers blindly to a publication, editors are out talking to the most distinguished researchers every day, encouraging them to "submit" to their journals. Journals publishing is a highly competitive and creative task. The most successful publishers got that way because of talent. Joe Esposito On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:51:59 +0000 > > I actually didn't think I was saying anything very controversial, but > perhaps I was naive. > > It is also naive, or disingenuous, to suggest that authors can just > "choose another publisher" if they don't like a contract. Academic > authors do not choose publishers, they choose journals. They may > select the journal they want to publish in based on its disciplinary > niche and impact, but never, at least in the journal world, because of > which conglomerate publishes it (except, as in the case of the > Elsevier boycott, negatively). And their choices are usually severely > limited, especially if they work in a specialized field. > > I certainly do believe that there would be fewer enforcement actions > over plagiarism/infringement if only the author's wishes, and not also > a publisher's desire to protect a profit, were involved, but there > would certainly be some. And publishers could still send cease and > desist letters, even as non-exclusive licensees, as Mr. Watkinson > acknowledges. > > It is worth remembering that copyright is not an all-or-nothing > proposition, but an infinitely divisible bundle of rights. A > well-drafted license could certainly apportion rights in a way that > allowed for appropriate enforcement when mutually agreeable, as well > as for downstream licensing and permissions. > > Kevin L. Smith, J.D. > Director of Scholarly Communication > Duke University > Perkins Library > Durham, NC 27708 > >