3 ms·
The problem is that this tactic actually empowers Elsevier. Without a credible threat to the status quo, nobody at UCLA or any other university has any reason t
by apo 8y ago
The problem is that this tactic actually empowers Elsevier. Without a credible threat to the status quo, nobody at UCLA or any other university has any reason to change what they're doing.
It's hard to imagine anyone at Elsevier falling for this bluff. They probably came in with a 40% increase knowing they'd only get 20%. After the letter, they drop the increase to 20%, then everyone claims victory and goes home.
But each round in which the OA card is played makes the bluff that much less credible.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> this tactic actually empowers Elsevier Power and profits are closely entangled. UCLA is extracting better pricing from Elsevier's weakened position as result of open-access competition. > it's hard to imagine anyone at Elsevier falling for this bluff What makes you think it was a bluff? When one threatens defection, one doesn't want to defect. That's why the defection is initially threatened, not acted upon.
- drb91 8y agoWhat do you consider credible?