From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:59:15 -0400

I have been mulling David Prosser's recent comment to the effect that the
publication arms of many professional societies may not be representative
of the outlook of the societies' membership. Maybe yes, maybe no. It would
be hard to get a comprehensive view of this, in part because the variation
among societies is so great.

Speaking from my own experience, which I do not pretend to be
comprehensive, generally speaking the publication arms of societies tend to
be a moderating force when it comes to the economics of a society. It is
also the experience of others (at least those I socialize with) in similar
lines of work. The membership generally makes decisions on the basis of
money; the publications are viewed as a way to fund other society
activities.

I know that there is a romantic view of the research community out there,
and of course we should not overlook all the saints who work in libraries.
But when you get up close to society memberships, everyone seems to be
fighting for a parking space. And so I wonder: Why would we think
researchers would be different from all other people?

The most conspicuous aspect of the business side of research publishing
today is the migration of society publishing programs to the service arms
of the major commercial houses. My colleagues and I are very active in this
area, and what we typically find is that the decision to sign up with an
Elsevier or a Wiley is driven by the society membership, who want the
money, not the publishers, who would prefer to remain independent and have
greater control over the brand.

Joe Esposito

-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
Processed Media
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito