From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:54:02 -0400 I agree with David. Joe Esposito On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:19 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:03:46 +0000 > > Gosh, I wish this was true. I wish that we were all just one big > happy family striving to promote scholarship. But I don’t think we > are. We all have different priorities and drivers and sometimes those > drivers and priorities clash. That’s not necessarily anybody’s > ‘fault' - it is just the way the system works. But the notion that an > academic wanting to publish in a high impact journal, a librarian > worried about the cost of that journal, and the shareholder of a > commercial publisher wanting to see the profits of that journal > maximised all share a common ethos is, to me at least, wishful > thinking. > > David > > On 10 Jul 2015, at 01:57, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Robert Glushko <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:44:35 +0000 > > > > I totally take your 'take a swing comment' in the humorous spirit in > > which I believe it was intended, but it does on some level make me a > > bit sad. > > > > I'd like to think that nearly all of us are doing what we do because > > we love the academy, we love scholarship, and on some level we want to > > make the world a better place. I hope that when we deal with one > > another we can keep in mind that publishers/libraries/scholarly > > societies are close relatives. And while like all families we can > > duke it out over the dinner table, we are at the end of the day > > family. There are PLENTY of constituencies out there with whom we > > have deeper disagreements than with each other. I'm reminded of the > > adage that we often judge ourselves by our intentions and others by > > their actions; perhaps we should bring empathy to the discussion. > > > > I'm hopeful that we can work to find common areas of interest, and > > that we can all work together to promote those areas. At our best, we > > do so much good. At our worst, our disagreements seem almost > > sectarian. If there are any fellow travelers on the list who share > > this viewpoint, I'd love to talk. > > > > Best, > > > > Bobby Glushko > > Head, Scholarly Communications and Copyright > > University of Toronto Libraries > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:51:49 -0400 > > > > I don't want to get into the middle of this ongoing dialogue between > > Kevin Smith and Alicia Wise--though I will say that the persistent > > politeness is truly surreal. Really, guys, take a swing at one > > another. We know you want to! > > > > Kevin, however, makes a remark that seems wrong to me. I don't mean > > wrong in the sense of factually incorrect, but wrong in the sense that > > when we look at all those arrows pointing to the future, which one is > > likely to emerge as the winner? The tragic thing about this game is > > that we will all be long gone ourselves before the results come in. > > So we are prophets without a prayer. This is not as bad as it sounds, > > inasmuch as, paraphrasing Bob Dole's comment about the Vice > > Presidency, it's an indoor job and requires no heavy lifting. > > > > It's the remark about subscriptions that just doesn't seem right to > > me. Everywhere you look in media businesses today, subscriptions are > > surging. The subscriptions can be HBO, Netflix, Oyster, Scribd, > > Audible--this list can go on until it tries the patience of our > > esteemed moderator. Meanwhile, even in the tiny little patch of > > scholarly communications, the revenue earned from subscriptions > > continues to rise year over year. The growth may not be what was once > > promised to Wall Street a decade ago, but there is no evidence that > > the economic model or the organizations that are built upon that model > > are fading into irrelevance. Indeed, one of the more intriguing > > projects I have been involved with the past year applies the > > subscription model to a variant of Gold open access. PeerJ's > > membership model is yet another flavor of this model. > > > > It doesn't matter if Kevin or Alicia or anyone else agrees with me or > > not. All this happens independently of ourselves. The economy is > > impersonal, human agency is overrated. But it is fun to go to the > > track and bet on the horses. Here's $2 on the subscription model to > > win, and another $2 for Gold OA to place. Green OA, alas, ends up > > outside the money. > > > > Joe Esposito