<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Cari tutti, <br></div>vi segnalo questa iniziativa di Martin Paul Eve, professore alla Birkbeck a Londra e attivista per le Digital Humanities nonche' fondatore con Caroline Edwards della Open Library for Humanities:<br><br><a href="https://www.martineve.com/2016/12/03/referring-elsevierrelx-to-the-competition-and-markets-authority/">https://www.martineve.com/2016/12/03/referring-elsevierrelx-to-the-competition-and-markets-authority/</a><br><br></div>Eve ha citato in giudizio Elsevier il 3 dicembre di fronte all'autorita' anticorruzione UK per abuso di posizione dominante, in relazione alle recenti trattative JICS/Elsevier per il contratto nazionale.<br><br></div>Merita una lettura attenta e una riflessione.<br><br></div>Cito solo una parte:<br><p>It is our view that Elsevier unfairly exploits the above dominant market position to avoid price competition in several ways:</p>
<ol><li>We believe that Elsevier uses non-disclosure agreements
extensively in order to ensure that its prices are unaffected by
competition. David Tempest, Director of Access Relations at Elsevier,
for example, argued that were other libraries/institutions of higher
education worldwide to know the amount Elsevier charges for access,
“everybody would drive down, down and down” on prices, leading to users
paying less for accessing these materials (the goal of market
competition). This is captured on video (Taylor, 2013). This represents,
in our view, a substantial discrimination between customers based on
little to no material difference in the circumstances of supply, as a
result of a dominant market position and a desire to avoid price
competition. We see this as consequently unfair to its customers who do
not see the benefits of price competition.</li><li>Because it holds such a dominant market position, we believe that
Elsevier knows that institutions of higher education (its primary
customers) will suffer if they do not subscribe to its packages. Because
it controls such a large portion of scholarly and scientific materials
(as above) it is able to leverage an operating profit margin of
approximately above 40% in the STM division since 2011 (Larivière,
Haustein, and Mongeon, 2015, figure 7), demonstrating, in our view,
substantial market dysfunction. We believe that this leads to a
situation in which it is difficult for competitors to emerge based
solely on Elsevier’s dominance. Because library budgets are finite, but
Elsevier controls so much of the supply chain, we feel that smaller
publishers are unable to compete due to the threat of Elsevier
withdrawing its supply to the same customer base.</li></ol><p>E ancora, piu' sotto:</p><p>Elsevier also control data and analytics services that are used by
universities to assess the reputation of journals, researchers, and
institutions. These services for both citation metrics (used to evaluate
researchers) and for university rankings are in part based on
Elsevier’s own journals, so it is our belief that institutions feel that
to be competitive they must have access to the journals that are used
to assess their research quality.</p><br><div><div>Buon inizio di settimana a tutti<br></div><div>eg<br clear="all"></div><div><div><div><div><div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">dr. Elena Giglia<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>Responsabile Ufficio Open Access - Editoria Elettronica<br>Direzione Sviluppo Organizzativo, Innovazione e Servizi Bibliotecari<br>Universita' degli Studi di Torino<br>tel. +39.011.670<b>.4191</b></span><br></span></div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)"><a href="http://www.oa.unito.it" target="_blank">www.oa.unito.it </a></span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>