Mr. Joe Esposito

• 
  www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53781/ - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/1/2007    Last Visited: 11/6/2007  

  By Joseph J. Esposito
  ...
  This is an interesting article that I need to read in more detail, but could we see a declaration of Joseph Esposito's competing interests, please?
  ...
  Joseph Esposito's bio
  ...
  Joseph Esposito's bio can be found here, and includes what we consider his potential competing interests:
  ...
  by Joseph J. Esposito
  ...
  It's fortuitous that Mr. Hodgkinson asks about Mr. Esposito's affiliations.
  ...
  Joe Esposito chose his whipping boys of the OA publishing industry with either diligence or extreme luck.The jury is still out on the Public Library of Science venture.It received substantial grant funding at the outset, but I've yet to see an analysis of how the money has been spent in the various criticisms of its burn rate.He casts aspersions on the profitability of a private concern, BioMed Central, on the grounds that as a private company it does not have to publicly disclose detailed financials.
  
  Missing from his analysis are notable Open Access publishing success stories, of which there are many.
  ...
  When Joe mentioned Disney, he referred to a brand.
  ...
  Joe apparently fails to see that any restrictions on openness are nothing but compromises that do not have a purpose other than financially underpinning the considerable efforts and investments needed for proper peer reviewed publishing.
  ...
  Joe gets it right to think of 'attention' as the limited resource in scholarly communication.
  ...
  I presume Joe is thinking of Arxiv there, but even Arxiv has a kind of peer review.

• 
  www.deepdyve.com/corp/about/advisory_board/://www.stats - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 6/24/2009    Last Visited: 6/24/2009  

  Joseph J. Esposito
  
  Joseph J. Esposito brings to DeepDyve a keen knowledge of the publishing and information industries. He began his career in publishing, amassing experience that is especially relevant to his role at DeepDyve. Over the years, Esposito helped many companies make the often-painful transition to the digital marketplace - such was the case when he was CEO of Encyclopedia Britannica. At a time when nearly all encyclopedic assets were in hardcopy, Esposito implemented a digital strategy that led Encyclopedia Britannica to become the first major encyclopedia to go digital. Esposito left Encyclopedia Britannica in 1996 and later became CEO of Tribal Voice and SRI Consulting, as well as interim CEO of Coriolis. He is currently president of Portable CEO, an independent consultancy that provides strategic guidance to companies large and small. He gained his publishing experience at Simon & Schuster and Random House, focusing in the areas of consumer information publishing, education publishing and technical publications. Esposito is a graduate of Rutgers University, where he earned his A.B., M.A. and M.Phil degrees in English and American literature.

• 
  openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/search/metrics/P1.htm - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 1/7/2008  

  Commentary on: "Putting Science into Science Publishing" by Joseph Esposito, Publishing Frontier (blog) December 11 2007.
  ...
  Joseph Esposito contemplates whole-journal cancellations of subscriptions to Gold OA journals, whereas the speculations have been about whether and when librarians would cancel non-OA journals as Green OA self-archiving grows.
  ...
  SUMMARY: Joseph Esposito, a management consultant, says Open Access (OA) is "research spam."But OA's explicit target content is all 2.5 million peer-reviewed articles published annually in the world's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals. (So either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!). Esposito says researchers' problem isn't access to journal articles (they already have that): rather, it's not having the time to read them.This will come as news to the countless researchers worldwide who are denied access daily to the articles in the journals their institution cannot afford, and to the authors of those articles, who are losing all that potential research impact. Search engines find it all, tantalizingly, but access depends on being able to afford the subscription tolls.Esposito also says OA is just for a small circle of peers: How big does he imagine the actual usership of most journal articles is? Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, even though ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it (and for their bonuses). Esposito describes the efforts of researchers to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying, but he does not attach a name to what anti-OA publishers are doing when they hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent OA self-archiving from being mandated. (Another surcharge for researchers, in addition to paying for their bonuses?)Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates, but he omits to mention that over 80% of those researchers report that they would self-archive willingly if mandated. (And where does Esposito think publishers would be without existing publish-or-perish mandates?)Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research article output is the time it takes to do the few keystrokes per article it takes to provide OA.That is what the mandates (and the metrics that reward them) are meant to accomplish at long last.
  
  Joseph Esposito is an independent management consultant (the "portable CEO") with a long history in publishing, specializing in "interim management and strategy work at the intersection of content and digital technology."
  
  In an interview by The Scientist (a follow-up to his article, "The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work"), Esposito says Open Access (OA) is "research spam" -- making unrefereed or low quality research available to researchers whose real problem is not insufficient access but insufficient time.
  
  In arguing for his "model," which he calls the "nautilus model," Esposito manages to fall (not for the first time) into many of the longstanding fallacies that have been painstakingly exposed and corrected for years in the self-archiving FAQ. (See especially Peer Review, Sitting Pretty, and Info-Glut.)
  
  Like so many others, with and without conflicting interests, Esposito does the double conflation (1) of OA publishing (Gold OA) with OA self-archiving (of non-OA journal articles) (Green OA), and (2) of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles with unpublished preprints.It would be very difficult to call OA research "spam" if Esposito were to state, veridically, that Green OA self-archiving means making all articles published in all peer-reviewed journals (whether Gold or not) OA. (Hence either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!).
  
  Instead, Esposito implies that OA is only or mainly for unrefereed or low quality research, which is simply false: OA's explicit target is the peer-reviewed, published postprints of all the 2.5 million articles published annually in all the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, from the very best to the very worst, without exception. (The self-archiving of pre-refereeing preprints is merely an optional supplement, a bonus; it is not what OA is about, or for.)
  
  Esposito says researchers' problem is not access to journal articles: They already have that via their institution's journal subscriptions; their real problem is not having the time to read those articles, and not having the search engines that pick out the best ones.
  ...
  Esposito says OA is just for a small circle of peers ("6? 60?600? but not 6000"): How big does he imagine the actual usership of most of the individual 2.5 million annual journal articles to be?Peer-reviewed research is an esoteric, peer-to-peer process, for the contents of all 25,000 journals: research is conducted and published, not for royalty income, but so that it can be used, applied and built upon by all interested peer specialists and practitioners, to the benefit of the tax-payers who fund their research; the size of the specialties varies, but none are big, because research itself is not big (compared to trade, and trade publication).
  
  Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, oblivious to the fact that the ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it.
  
  Esposito also refers (perhaps correctly) to researchers' amateurish efforts to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying -- passing in silence over the fact that the real lobbying pro's are the wealthy anti-OA publishers who hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent Green OA from being mandated.
  
  Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates ("it's not news that people would comply with a requirement"), but he omits to mention that most researchers surveyed recognised the benefits of OA, and over 80% reported they would self-archive willingly if it was mandated, only 15% stating they would do so unwillingly. (One wonders whether Esposito also finds the existing and virtually universal publish-or-perish mandates of research institutions and funders tautological -- and where he thinks the publishers for whom he consults would be without those mandates.)
  
  /Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research output is the time it takes to do a few keystrokes per article.That, and only that, is what the mandates are all about, for busy, overloaded researchers: Giving those few keystrokes the priority they deserve, so they can at last start reaping the benefits -- in terms of research access and impact -- that they desire.The outcome is optimal and inevitable for the research community; it is only because this was not immediately obvious that the outcome has been so long overdue.
  
  But the delay has been in no small part also because of the conflicting interests of the journal publishing industry for which Esposito consults.So it is perhaps not surprising that he should perceive it otherwise, unperturbed if things continue at a (nautilus) snail's pace for as long as possible ...

• 
  radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/11/kindle_fundamen.html - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 11/28/2007  

  Here are some thoughts of Joe Esposito, Portable CEO and formerly an executive at Simon & Schuster and at Random House, a former President of Merriam-Webster, and CEO of Encyclopaedia Britannica; and Bill Janssen, a senior researcher at Xerox PARC for many years in the fields of digital texts, ebooks, and the user experience.
  ...
  Joe Esposito,
  ...
  Joe Esposito
  ...
  I wonder if Joe Esposito was paying attention during the last tech bubble (or this one, for that matter).
  ...
  Regarding this two simple points, the two citations (especially Joe Esposito) miss the point in their judgements.
  ...
  Joseph J. Esposito [11.26.07 05:41 PM]
  ...
  Joe Esposito
  ...
  Joseph, the last thing anyone online can do is avoid conversations about the "Kindle", IMHO the hype machine for this product has gone into hyperdrive and whatever comments people make about it dwarf and disappear in relationship to the size of the buzz Amazon have managed to inspire.

• 
  openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/329-Publishi - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 7/3/2008  

  SUMMARY: Joseph Esposito, a management consultant, says Open Access (OA) is "research spam."But OA's explicit target content is all 2.5 million peer-reviewed articles published annually in the world's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals. (So either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!). Esposito says researchers' problem isn't access to journal articles (they already have that): rather, it's not having the time to read them.This will come as news to the countless researchers worldwide who are denied access daily to the articles in the journals their institution cannot afford, and to the authors of those articles, who are losing all that potential research impact. Search engines find it all, tantalizingly, but access depends on being able to afford the subscription tolls.Esposito also says OA is just for a small circle of peers: How big does he imagine the actual usership of most journal articles is? Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, even though ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it (and for their bonuses). Esposito describes the efforts of researchers to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying, but he does not attach a name to what anti-OA publishers are doing when they hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent OA self-archiving from being mandated. (Another surcharge for researchers, in addition to paying for their bonuses?)Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates, but he omits to mention that over 80% of those researchers report that they would self-archive willingly if mandated. (And where does Esposito think publishers would be without existing publish-or-perish mandates?)Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research article output is the time it takes to do the few keystrokes per article it takes to provide OA.That is what the mandates (and the metrics that reward them) are meant to accomplish at long last.
  
  Joseph Esposito is an independent management consultant (the "portable CEO") with a long history in publishing, specializing in "interim management and strategy work at the intersection of content and digital technology."
  
  In an interview by The Scientist (a follow-up to his article, "The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work"), Esposito says Open Access (OA) is "research spam" -- making unrefereed or low quality research available to researchers whose real problem is not insufficient access but insufficient time.
  
  In arguing for his "model," which he calls the "nautilus model," Esposito manages to fall (not for the first time) into many of the longstanding fallacies that have been painstakingly exposed and corrected for years in the self-archiving FAQ. (See especially Peer Review, Sitting Pretty, and Info-Glut.)
  
  Like so many others, with and without conflicting interests, Esposito does the double conflation (1) of OA publishing (Gold OA) with OA self-archiving (of non-OA journal articles) (Green OA), and (2) of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles with unpublished preprints.It would be very difficult to call OA research "spam" if Esposito were to state, veridically, that Green OA self-archiving means making all articles published in all peer-reviewed journals (whether Gold or not) OA. (Hence either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!).
  
  Instead, Esposito implies that OA is only or mainly for unrefereed or low quality research, which is simply false: OA's explicit target is the peer-reviewed, published postprints of all the 2.5 million articles published annually in all the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, from the very best to the very worst, without exception. (The self-archiving of pre-refereeing preprints is merely an optional supplement, a bonus; it is not what OA is about, or for.)
  
  Esposito says researchers' problem is not access to journal articles: They already have that via their institution's journal subscriptions; their real problem is not having the time to read those articles, and not having the search engines that pick out the best ones.
  ...
  Esposito says OA is just for a small circle of peers ("6? 60?600? but not 6000"): How big does he imagine the actual usership of most of the individual 2.5 million annual journal articles to be?Peer-reviewed research is an esoteric, peer-to-peer process, for the contents of all 25,000 journals: research is conducted and published, not for royalty income, but so that it can be used, applied and built upon by all interested peer specialists and practitioners, to the benefit of the tax-payers who fund their research; the size of the specialties varies, but none are big, because research itself is not big (compared to trade, and trade publication).
  
  Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, oblivious to the fact that the ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it.
  
  Esposito also refers (perhaps correctly) to researchers' amateurish efforts to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying -- passing in silence over the fact that the real lobbying pro's are the wealthy anti-OA publishers who hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent Green OA from being mandated.
  
  Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates ("it's not news that people would comply with a requirement"), but he omits to mention that most researchers surveyed recognised the benefits of OA, and over 80% reported they would self-archive willingly if it was mandated, only 15% stating they would do so unwillingly. (One wonders whether Esposito also finds the existing and virtually universal publish-or-perish mandates of research institutions and funders tautological -- and where he thinks the publishers for whom he consults would be without those mandates.)
  
  /Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research output is the time it takes to do a few keystrokes per article.That, and only that, is what the mandates are all about, for busy, overloaded researchers: Giving those few keystrokes the priority they deserve, so they can at last start reaping the benefits -- in terms of research access and impact -- that they desire.The outcome is optimal and inevitable for the research community; it is only because this was not immediately obvious that the outcome has been so long overdue.
  
  But the delay has been in no small part also because of the conflicting interests of the journal publishing industry for which Esposito consults.So it is perhaps not surprising that he should perceive it otherwise, unperturbed if things continue at a (nautilus) snail's pace for as long as possible ...

• 
  information-innovation-exchange.com/2008/06/21/ - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 2/21/2009  

  Joseph J. Esposito, an independent consultant focusing on digital media, looks at how the market determines publishing strategies and business models in "Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase." The less a reader knows about a field, the more he needs the mediation of a publisher, and the less useful open access may be, Esposito writes.
  
  Read the full article here
  
  Share This
  
  Portico and Ithaka Release Results of Digital Preservation Survey of US Library Directors

• 
  www.deepdyve.com/corp/news_events/press_releases/200903 - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 3/17/2009    Last Visited: 6/24/2009  

  DeepDyve Welcomes John R. Ellis and Joseph J. Esposito to its Advisory Board
  ...
  "We're privileged to have John and Joseph sitting on our Advisory Board," said William Park, CEO of DeepDyve.
  ...
  Joseph J. Esposito
  
  Joseph J. Esposito brings to DeepDyve a keen knowledge of the publishing and information industries. He began his career in publishing, amassing experience that is especially relevant to his role at DeepDyve, as the company works closely with the publishing community to broker mutually beneficial ways to make the publishers' assets available to DeepDyve's users. Over the years, Esposito helped many companies make the often-painful transition to the digital marketplace - such was the case when he was CEO of Encyclopedia Britannica. At a time when nearly all encyclopedic assets were in hardcopy, Esposito implemented a digital strategy that led Encyclopedia Britannica to become the first major encyclopedia to go digital.
  
  "The hardcopy-to-digital shift that I spearheaded while at Encyclopedia Britannica is emblematic of what is happening with research information today," said Joseph J. Esposito. "The Internet has dramatically changed how people discover, consume and share information - and this is especially true when it comes to the Deep Web. DeepDyve is making great strides to unlock the Deep Web, and I'm excited to join the company's Advisory Board and help in that endeavor."
  
  Esposito left Encyclopedia Britannica in 1996 and later became CEO of Tribal Voice and SRI Consulting, as well as interim CEO of Coriolis. He is currently president of Portable CEO, an independent consultancy that provides strategic guidance to companies large and small. He gained his publishing experience at Simon & Schuster and Random House, focusing in the areas of consumer information publishing, education publishing and technical publications. Esposito is a graduate of Rutgers University, where he earned his AB, MA and MPhil degrees in English and American literature.

• 
  www.deepdyve.com/corp/news_events/press_releases/200903 - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 3/17/2009    Last Visited: 6/24/2009  

  DeepDyve Welcomes John R. Ellis and Joseph J. Esposito to its Advisory Board
  ...
  DeepDyve Welcomes John R. Ellis and Joseph J. Esposito to its Advisory Board
  ...
  "We're privileged to have John and Joseph sitting on our Advisory Board," said William Park, CEO of DeepDyve.
  ...
  Joseph J. Esposito
  
  Joseph J. Esposito brings to DeepDyve a keen knowledge of the publishing and information industries. He began his career in publishing, amassing experience that is especially relevant to his role at DeepDyve, as the company works closely with the publishing community to broker mutually beneficial ways to make the publishers' assets available to DeepDyve's users. Over the years, Esposito helped many companies make the often-painful transition to the digital marketplace - such was the case when he was CEO of Encyclopedia Britannica. At a time when nearly all encyclopedic assets were in hardcopy, Esposito implemented a digital strategy that led Encyclopedia Britannica to become the first major encyclopedia to go digital.
  
  "The hardcopy-to-digital shift that I spearheaded while at Encyclopedia Britannica is emblematic of what is happening with research information today," said Joseph J. Esposito. "The Internet has dramatically changed how people discover, consume and share information - and this is especially true when it comes to the Deep Web. DeepDyve is making great strides to unlock the Deep Web, and I'm excited to join the company's Advisory Board and help in that endeavor."
  
  Esposito left Encyclopedia Britannica in 1996 and later became CEO of Tribal Voice and SRI Consulting, as well as interim CEO of Coriolis. He is currently president of Portable CEO, an independent consultancy that provides strategic guidance to companies large and small. He gained his publishing experience at Simon & Schuster and Random House, focusing in the areas of consumer information publishing, education publishing and technical publications. Esposito is a graduate of Rutgers University, where he earned his AB, MA and MPhil degrees in English and American literature.

• 
  www.the-scientist.com/2007/11/1/11/1/ - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/1/2007    Last Visited: 11/27/2007  

  Joe Esposito is the president of Portable CEO, a consulting company that works with publishing, multimedia, and telecommunications companies.With a background in publishing, Esposito has worked for Simon & Schuster, Random House, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica, and has served as CEO for Tribal Voice and Britannica, as well as on the board of MIT Press.In "Open Access 2.0," Esposito writes that the widespread assumption that companies must either go completely open access or keep using the traditional publishing method must make room for a "pluralistic" system where "each method of publishing finds its own place."

• 
  openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/2007/11.html - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/1/2007    Last Visited: 1/7/2008  

  On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Joseph Esposito wrote: "Hey, Stevan, come off it.Read the article.Once again you pick a fight when I mostly agree with you."I was commenting on your interview rather than your article, but if you insist, here goes.The comments are much the same.I think we are galaxies apart, Joe, because you keep on imagining that OA is about unrefereed peer-to-peer content, whereas it is about making all peer-reviewed journal articles freely accessible online: Comments on: Esposito, J. (2007) Open Access 2.0: The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work.The Scientist 21(11) 52.
  ...
  It is only because you keep seeing the OA papers as not being peer-reviewed and published, Joe, that you give yourself and others the impression that there is an either/or here -- when in reality OA is about both/and.
  ...
  Now, Joe, can we agree that we do indeed disagree?
  ...
  SUMMARY: Joseph Esposito, a management consultant, says Open Access (OA) is "research spam."But OA's explicit target content is all 2.5 million peer-reviewed articles published annually in the world's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals. (So either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!). Esposito says researchers' problem isn't access to journal articles (they already have that): rather, it's not having the time to read them.This will come as news to the countless researchers worldwide who are denied access daily to the articles in the journals their institution cannot afford, and to the authors of those articles, who are losing all that potential research impact. Search engines find it all, tantalizingly, but access depends on being able to afford the subscription tolls.Esposito also says OA is just for a small circle of peers: How big does he imagine the actual usership of most journal articles is? Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, even though ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it (and for their bonuses). Esposito describes the efforts of researchers to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying, but he does not attach a name to what anti-OA publishers are doing when they hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent OA self-archiving from being mandated. (Another surcharge for researchers, in addition to paying for their bonuses?)Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates, but he omits to mention that over 80% of those researchers report that they would self-archive willingly if mandated. (And where does Esposito think publishers would be without existing publish-or-perish mandates?)Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research article output is the time it takes to do the few keystrokes per article it takes to provide OA.That is what the mandates (and the metrics that reward them) are meant to accomplish at long last.
  
  Joseph Esposito is an independent management consultant (the "portable CEO") with a long history in publishing, specializing in "interim management and strategy work at the intersection of content and digital technology."
  
  In an interview by The Scientist (a follow-up to his article, "The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work"), Esposito says Open Access (OA) is "research spam" -- making unrefereed or low quality research available to researchers whose real problem is not insufficient access but insufficient time.
  
  In arguing for his "model," which he calls the "nautilus model," Esposito manages to fall (not for the first time) into many of the longstanding fallacies that have been painstakingly exposed and corrected for years in the self-archiving FAQ. (See especially Peer Review, Sitting Pretty, and Info-Glut.)
  
  Like so many others, with and without conflicting interests, Esposito does the double conflation (1) of OA publishing (Gold OA) with OA self-archiving (of non-OA journal articles) (Green OA), and (2) of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles with unpublished preprints.It would be very difficult to call OA research "spam" if Esposito were to state, veridically, that Green OA self-archiving means making all articles published in all peer-reviewed journals (whether Gold or not) OA. (Hence either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!).
  
  Instead, Esposito implies that OA is only or mainly for unrefereed or low quality research, which is simply false: OA's explicit target is the peer-reviewed, published postprints of all the 2.5 million articles published annually in all the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, from the very best to the very worst, without exception. (The self-archiving of pre-refereeing preprints is merely an optional supplement, a bonus; it is not what OA is about, or for.)
  
  Esposito says researchers' problem is not access to journal articles: They already have that via their institution's journal subscriptions; their real problem is not having the time to read those articles, and not having the search engines that pick out the best ones.
  ...
  Esposito says OA is just for a small circle of peers ("6? 60?600? but not 6000"): How big does he imagine the actual usership of most of the individual 2.5 million annual journal articles to be?Peer-reviewed research is an esoteric, peer-to-peer process, for the contents of all 25,000 journals: research is conducted and published, not for royalty income, but so that it can be used, applied and built upon by all interested peer specialists and practitioners, to the benefit of the tax-payers who fund their research; the size of the specialties varies, but none are big, because research itself is not big (compared to trade, and trade publication).
  
  Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, oblivious to the fact that the ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it.
  
  Esposito also refers (perhaps correctly) to researchers' amateurish efforts to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying -- passing in silence over the fact that the real lobbying pro's are the wealthy anti-OA publishers who hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent Green OA from being mandated.
  
  Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates ("it's not news that people would comply with a requirement"), but he omits to mention that most researchers surveyed recognised the benefits of OA, and over 80% reported they would self-archive willingly if it was mandated, only 15% stating they would do so unwillingly. (One wonders whether Esposito also finds the existing and virtually universal publish-or-perish mandates of research institutions and funders tautological -- and where he thinks the publishers for whom he consults would be without those mandates.)
  
  /Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests.The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research output is the time it takes to do a few keystrokes per article.That, and only that, is what the mandates are all about, for busy, overloaded researchers: Giving those few keystrokes the priority they deserve, so they can at last start reaping the benefits -- in terms of research access and impact -- that they desire.The outcome is optimal and inevitable for the research community; it is only because this was not immediately obvious that the outcome has been so long overdue.
  
  But the delay has been in no small part also because of the conflicting interests of the journal publishing industry for which Esposito consults.So it is perhaps not surprising that he should perceive it otherwise, unperturbed if things continue at a (nautilus) snail's pace for as long as possible ...

Page:  1 2 3 4 5