RE: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

Seconding what Anthony has to say,

In the 1980's we were able to verify some editors were receiving 
substantial "honoraria" for their work and or name associated 
with some very high priced journals.

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony
Watkinson
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:16 PM
To: dgoodman@Princeton.EDU; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing
errors

I am sorry but this is just not correct. Building models of how 
much publishers contribute to the information chain is not helped 
by inaccurate statements. Expenses are expenses and honoraria are 
something different - as the tax authorities recognise. Let us 
call them fees if that is clearer.

I can imnmediately think of a clinical journal where the 
publisher fee explicitly buys the time which would otherwise be 
spent earning from private practice. Quite a number of editors of 
journals retire early because the income from the journal (the 
honorarium) enables them to live in comfort while drawing their 
pension. This is not a practice that publishers should encourage 
but it does happen - quite a lot.

I am reviewing journals that fit these specifications in my mind 
as I write but it is impossible to go into any more detail 
because any specific information even if disguised might be 
recognised and these matters are highly sensitive. I am of course 
aware that David Goodman is serving all of us in trying to tease 
out these questions, which is why his initial statement surprised 
me.

Anthony Watkinson