From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:10:25 +0000 So “all present controversies” about publishing in journals arise from the prevalence of citation-based usage factors? They don’t arise from questions about access or reuse? (As a signatory to the Berlin Declaration, I would have thought that you saw access and reuse issues as very important—and maybe even central—to the controversies around scholarly publishing.) --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask] From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 06:58:22 +0000 Rick makes an interesting point: "In any case, I can’t see how the innocent monopoly that I hold over the market for my article suddenly becomes nefarious when I transfer my copyright to a publisher". The shift from the author to the publisher transforms a market of ideas and facts (an article or a monograph) into a market of journals ranked by their citability. This is the legerdemain - pardon my French - which lies at the heart of all the present controversies. It is the legerdemain that makes journal title marketability pass for quality. This way of constructing the journal market was not always there. Journals used to have "reputations" which were fuzzy at best. They were important to some extent, but no one wanted to rank journals on a strictly quantitative basis as is the case nowadays. However, by conflating citability and quality, a number of publishers began to understand that this allowed for the creation of a favourable market structure. The role of the science citation index in helping shape this new market form can never be overestimated. So, to go back to Rick's question, the nefarious nature of the transfer lies precisely in all the transformations that this very transfer allows: it contaminates a "market" of ideas (with symbolic capital) into a commercial market with usual capital. The rankings are the conversion tools from one form of capital to the other. And the consequences are the things that Bjoern Brembs objects to (and has objected to for a long time). In a nutshell, this is THE problem of scholarly publishing since the 70s. Jean-Claude Guédon PS Regarding quality, it is very, very probable that a high-quality journal will reject a large proportion of submissions; however, invoking a high level of rejections does not guarantee quality. Rejections can be motivated by a whole range of factors, all relevant to the perspective of an editor engaged in ranking contests. From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:07:26 +0000 But if I understand the case law that has followed from the Sherman Act, a monopoly doesn’t lose its innocence by virtue of mere market dominance; it loses its innocence when it arises from businesses engaging in a “combination... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” (The quote is from Section 3 of the Sherman Act, the full text of which can be found at https://tinyurl.com/ycvnagfg, for those interested.) As far as I can see—and please, if I’ve missed something in the complaint please correct me—no one is accusing Elsevier of conspiring with any other business in order to undermine competition in the market. Tennant’s and Brembs’ real complaint seems to be against scholarly publishing itself, which (they correctly point out) is not a market of substitutes. But that’s not the fault of Elsevier or of anyone else; it arises from the simple fact that what scholarship produces are more-or-less unique documents: generally speaking, no two biology or sociology or physics articles are similar enough in content that one of them could functionally substitute for the other—if they were, we would strongly suspect one of the authors of plagiarism. This means that monopoly control of the market for any individual product of scholarship is inevitable and will always rest with its copyright holder (in the form of an “innocent monopoly,” as you point out, Kevin). Unless, of course, the copyright is broken—either literally (by the work being placed in the public domain) or functionally (by the work being licensed to the public under CC BY or its equivalent). In any case, I can’t see how the innocent monopoly that I hold over the market for my article suddenly becomes nefarious when I transfer my copyright to a publisher—let alone how it becomes uniquely nefarious when transferred to Elsevier in particular. In neither case is there any conspiracy between putative competitors for the purpose of exerting illegal control over a market. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:19:49 +0000 I am not an anti-trust expert by any means, but I think the answer to this, and to the same question posed by Rick, is straightforward. The limited monopoly held by individual authors is not a problem — it is an “innocent” monopoly, just like my exclusive rights over by house — because it does not convey market dominance. The monopolist problem the complaint outlines is quite different, where a large conglomeration of monopolies over content are exercised in order to dominate a market and to exclude competition. The line that is allegedly crossed has to be define within the terms of a particular market, of course, which is precisely what competition authorities are charged to do. Kevin On Nov 4, 2018, at 12:47 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]<mailto: [log in to unmask]>> wrote: From: Kent Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:42:35 -0700 Can someone explain to me what a “monopoly over articles” means compared to the cultural expectations prohibiting duplicate publication and plagiarism? Isn’t every article locked down by these expectations and norms, moreso than by copyright? Also, not all publishers require copyright transfer, so if this were an issue for an author group, authors could shop for publishers who don’t. The market would respond, and to some extent has responded. Isn’t copyright transfer a market condition susceptible to market pressures? But the first question is the one I’m most curious about. What would “non-monopolized” articles look like? Any different? -- Kent Anderson CEO, RedLink and RedLink Network 57 East Main Street, Suite 211 Westborough, MA 01581 https://www.redlink.com Phone: 508-366-5653 Cell: 774-288-9464 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ORCID: 0000-0002-5458-6735 [snip]