Re: Homer Simpson at the NIH (renaissance?)

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I am keenly interested in Chris Armbruster's work, much of which 
I agree with, but I wish to point out that in no way are his 
comments apposite mine. And that's fine, but let's not assume 
there is a debate going on when we are in fact talking about two 
entirely different things.  In terms of market maturity, I would 
suggest this mind experiment:  imagine the journals world five 
years from now.  Is the market share of the 5 largest players, as 
measured in dollars, larger or smaller than it is today?  (And, 
yes, we can allow for the current 5 to have become 2 or 3.) 
Furthermore, the absolute growth of the 5, putting acquisitions 
to the side, will be in the single digits.  That's maturity.

There may of course be new markets emerging, such as a market for 
a new kind of certification service.  But those revenues will be 
on top of what the 5 largest publishers earn.  You would have to 
look beyond a 5-year horizon to see the 5 diminish in scope and 
influence.

Armbruster is addressing a big idea:  the restructuring of the 
information economy.  I am addressing a small one:  how the 
current economy for research publishing works.  Let's hear it for 
the big ideas, but even the small ones cry out from time to time.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Armbruster, Chris" <Chris.Armbruster@EUI.eu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH (renaissance?)

> The idea that the publishing is a no-growth market is based on 
> the now faulty perception that the Oldenbourg model of 
> conjoining peer review with dissemination in a final archival 
> publication may be transposed to the internet era. True enough, 
> this kind of publishing is a no-growth market. I would go even 
> further and say that in the medium term it has no future at 
> all. My argument would be that digital technology and economics 
> strongly favour the severance of certification from 
> dissemination. In that scenario, the functions of registration, 
> dissemination and archiving will lie with (digital) 
> libraries-cum-repositories, wheras certification and new kinds 
> of value-adding navigation services will be a growth market.
>
> I therefore suggest that we will witness the renaissance of 
> society publishers and the return of the library for scientific 
> and scholarly publishing. In this segment I would be more 
> afraid for the big commercial publishers that, because of their 
> size and inflexibility, might find themselves in a big squeeze 
> quite soon.
>
> For more details on this argument, please consult 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=997819
>
> Armbruster, Chris, "Society Publishing, the Internet and Open 
> Access: Shifting Mission-Orientation from Content Holding to 
> Certification and Navigation Services?" (July 2007). Available 
> at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=997819
>
> or, for an overview, go to 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=434782
>
> Joe Esposito wrote:
>
> If there is less money in the system, the bigger players are 
> better positioned to survive; if there is more money in the 
> system, the bigger players are better positioned to survive. 
> The issue is not the size of the market; it is the maturity of 
> the market.  Publishing is close to a no-growth business.  In 
> no-growth markets, consolidation is a likely, if not 
> inevitable, strategy.
>
> The only reason that academic journals are published by such a 
> huge number of publishers--unlike, say, college texts (6 
> players in the U.S. have 85% of the market)--is that the 
> not-for-profit status of many of the players makes them 
> resistant to some aspects of the marketplace.  That is neither 
> good nor bad; it is what it is.  If all journals publishers 
> were publicly traded and thus subject to Wall Street's stern 
> review, consolidation would come quickly; we would be down to 
> three publishers in 5 years.