FT on the OFT on scientific journals

From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:04:17 +0100

Interesting also to note that one of the reasons the UK Office of Fair
Trading decided not to investigate the market for scientific journals is
that 'electronic delivery might allow academics to bypass the commercial
companies'. Does the OFT, or Reed Elsevier shareholders, know something we
don't? The evidence cited in this respect is SPARC, arXiv, ELSSS (has it
published any journals?) and Berkeley Electronic Press.

The OFT's view and the full report are at

>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:36:35 +0100
>Reply-To: Adrian Smith <a.smith_at_LEEDS.AC.UK>
>Sender: "For science and technology
>librarians." <LIS-SCITECH_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>From: Adrian Smith <a.smith_at_LEEDS.AC.UK>
>Subject: The Bookseller report: the FT on the OFT
>X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>The FT reports on the decision by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) not to
>launch a formal investigation into the STM journals market, even though
>that market might "not be working well".
>The FT's Lombard column says that
>this is a pretty good outcome for Reed Elsevier and its rivals in this cosy
>market niche; but wonders why shares in Reed Elsevier fell on the news.
>Reed has been telling analysts that the report was a "non-event", even
>though some of the OFT's conclusions were pretty damning.
>Adrian Smith
>Faculty Team Librarian
>Edward Boyle Library
>University of Leeds LS2 9JT
>+44 (0) 113 34 35531

Steve Hitchcock
Open Citation (OpCit) Project <http://opcit.eprints.org/>
IAM Research Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: sh94r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
Received on Wed Sep 11 2002 - 14:04:17 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:39 GMT