From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 00:41:40 +0000 I would call into question the basic point of Big Pharma being users rather than contributors to journal articles. On what basis is this statement made? Or did I misunderstand? I've recently worked in a Big Pharma company (for about 7 1/2 years) and made a conservative estimate of 200-300 articles contributed to peer-reviewed journals each year by this company's scientists. Steve On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:34 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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