> In examining that business plan, what I note is that it works on a constructed confusion
> between ideas and finances which is based on the careless use of the word "market".
> But this careless use of the word "market" is essential to move from the level of ideas
> as found in articles to journals as crucial elements of commercial transactions.
Given that copies of scholarly articles and books are bought and sold every day, and that copyright in scholarly articles and books is traded every day by authors in return for desired publishing services, it seems pretty clear that there exists a “market” (as the term is traditionally understood) for these products of scholarship. This isn’t a marketplace for “ideas” as such, obviously; it’s a marketplace for copies of the written expression of ideas, for access to copies of them hosted elsewhere, and for the right to publish them. If you don’t want to call this trading environment a “market,” what do you think would be a better term?
> I could have added that Rick himself points this very well, if involuntarily, when he speaks
> of an "innocent [!!!] monopoly over the market":
Just to be clear: the concept of an “innocent monopoly” isn’t one that I came up with myself. It’s a well-established economic concept.
> he himself confuses the "market" of ideas driven by symbolic capital, and the market of
> journals, driven by financial considerations.
What we’ve been discussing here isn’t a “market of ideas,” but a market for the products of scholarship, specifically scholarly articles and books. Copies of these are bought and sold every day in an open marketplace, rights of online access to them are bought and sold in an open marketplace, and the right to publish them is exchanged every day by authors for services they want. The reality of a market for products of scholarship is self-evident. I don’t think there’s any confusion here, at least on my part.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Subject: Re: Complaint for Elsevier anti-competitive practices
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:05:05 -0500
"lying at the heart of all controversies" may (roughly) approximate "arising", but it certainly does not exclude other factors, such as access and re-use (which I do hold dear). Furthermore, one must distinguish between the surface events (access and re-use) and the deeper structures (economic underpinning).
To understand why there is resistance to access or re-use on the part of publishers, we need to understand their business plan, particularly if they are for-profit. After all, that is what is crucial to them. The well being of scholarly communication comes only second at best.
In examining that business plan, what I note is that it works on a constructed confusion between ideas and finances which is based on the careless use of the word "market". But this careless use of the word "market" is essential to move from the level of ideas as found in articles to journals as crucial elements of commercial transactions.
I could have added that Rick himself points this very well, if involuntarily, when he speaks of an "innocent [!!!] monopoly over the market": he himself confuses the "market" of ideas driven by symbolic capital, and the market of journals, driven by financial considerations.
Scientific authors are rarely paid by journals for their publications, and they seek attribution and visibility rather than money.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2018 à 19:19 -0500, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
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
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]>
[SNIP]