Universities could form a consortium, pool whatever they spend on Springer, do a leveraged buyout of the company, and run it as a nonprofit... (I am NOT saying it is a good idea.) --Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>wrote: > Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run > scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see > any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is > not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and > risk pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing > out to competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal > publishing busy entirely. In any case, all the papers that Springer has > already published OA will remain OA. > > > David > > > > On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:44, Heather Morrison wrote: > > > According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, > a private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment > Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase > Springer. Details: > > > http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-springer-for-sale > > > > Springer is the world's second-largest scholarly publisher (after > Elsevier), and owner of BioMedCentral. > > > > This might be a good time to start thinking about the implications of > private ownership of scholarly publishing. For example, my understanding > (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Springer was actively involved in > lobbying for gold UK cash for CC-BY from RCUK, and that one of the > rationales for providing this funding is to support UK-based industry. This > puzzles me for many reasons; one is that the major beneficiaries of this > policy are not UK-based at all, and the actual UK-based commercial outfits > (Elsevier, Informa.plc also known as Taylor & Francis, Routledge etc.) are > likely to be hurt by this policy and are likely opposed to it. The largest > OA via CC-BY publishers are BioMedCentral, with an office in London but > ownership in Sweden and Singapore, and PLoS, with a principle US base. > Again, corrections appreciated. > > > > At any rate, even if Springer currently were UK-owned, what happens when > it is sold? There are no guarantees that the company will be bought by an > organization with a philosophical commitment to open access. Considering > the price, the only likely guarantee is that the next owner will have a > firm commitment to making profits for private owners. > > > > BioMedCentral and PLoS have done outstanding work as OA publishing > pioneers and developed practices that are good models for others. However, > when planning for the future of OA, it is important to take into account > the environment in which these organizations work. In the commercial > for-profit sector, changes of ownership and/or management, often > accompanied by changes of direction, are much more common than new > companies developing practices that then become the traditions for decades > and centuries that would be needed to ensure ongoing open access. > > > > best, > > > > Heather Morrison, MLIS > > Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication > > http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ > > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL@eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
