[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

> > "Freely available" is not the same thing as "free."

>  

>   I did not say that it was.

I see. I assumed when you countered the horrendouus $3,000 price tag with your previous offer "to make the chapters freely available on E-LIS," that you were negating the need for cost recovery. So is it the publisher's profit margin you think out of line?

 

> > Money still has to change hands at some point. And I see there are

> a

> > lot of organizations putting membership and other dollars into

> > E-LIS.

>

>   I am not aware of that. As far as I understand, CILEA maintains

> the

>   server. The editors work as volunteers.

Then CILEA is paying for the server space!!!! My point is, someone/thing is. Nice that CILEA can afford it.

And while E-LIS may be "freely available" now--discounting, of course, the fact that someone/thing is paying for the internet access by which each of us gets to the site in the first place--will it be able to do so ad infinitum? Let's hope so.

(Guess all of the other associations listed are just providing the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Sorry if I misunderstood.)

It's easy to forget that big bad corporate publishers absorb a lot of costs we take for granted when singing the praises of "free availability."

I guess what annoyed me about the original message was the public slap at Marcia and Mary for wasting their time, and the efforts of their contributors--for example, and I quote, "most of us just don't need these articles"--when they were simply wanting to generate more sales.

SueE

Sue Easun

ca.linkedin.com/in/sueeasun