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