<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I agree with Scott's take on this. Bill was simply saying that a publisher that offered affordable books has made a policy decision to raise the prices beyond individual affordability and that this has a negative impact on research.<div><br></div><div>I have no idea how Mouton is doing financially. I know that all publishers are hurting tremendously, laying off people right and left. Authors are receiving less. Agents are receiving less. It is a business in crisis. </div><div><br></div><div>There are no villains here. Linguists want to buy grammars. Mouton wants to sell them. We will likely both need to find a space that allows Mouton to make a profit (it definitely should) and be able to survive, but that allows science to count on the excellent material it publishes.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Dan</div><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>*************************</div><div>Daniel L. Everett</div><div>Dean of Arts and Sciences, Ph.D.</div><div>Bentley University</div><div>175 Forest St.</div><div>Waltham, MA 02451</div><div>Fax: 781-891-2125</div><div>Phone: 781 891 2113</div><div><a href="http://academics.bentley.edu/arts-sciences/dean-arts-and-sciences">http://academics.bentley.edu/arts-sciences/dean-arts-and-sciences</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://daneverettbooks.com">http://daneverettbooks.com</a></div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Nov 14, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Scott C Delancey wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div> I think this is unfair to Bill, whose original post was concerned<br> with a specific decision on the part of Mouton de Gruyter, about a <br> particular<br> arrangement between them and ALT. Since it is with Mouton that<br> ALT had this arrangement, and it is Mouton's decision to change it,<br> it is entirely appropriate that *that* discussion focus on that <br> company.<br><br> Obviously the discussion quickly moved away from that specific issue to<br> more general complaints about academic publishers, and in that context<br> it is certainly unfair to single out Mouton de Gruyter -- I'm sure <br> anyone<br> who has paid any attention to the issue can easily think of worse <br> offenders.<br> But all Bill was doing in the post Frans is replying to was to try and<br> return to his original point, which is quite legitimately specific to<br> Mouton.<br><br> Scott DeLancey<br><br> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:15:02 +0100, Frans Plank wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Dear all,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">since Bill continues on this list to specifically blame De Gruyter<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mouton of depriving the typological community of something desirable<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(and I couldn't agree more that a higher discount on grammars and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">other typological titles for ALT members ARE desirable -- from any<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">publishers, but especially from such publishers where editors vouch<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for quality with their good names), here's a few thoughts on his<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">point.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I have no inside knowledge of De Gruyter Mouton's profit margins, but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I would be genuinely surprised if they made a lot of money with MGL,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or for that matter also with LT. (Uri could give you particulars, I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">assume; the editors of MGL could fill you in on MGL sales, without <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with discounts. For comparison, for the profit margin of a publisher<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not publishing anything like MGL, Elsevier, see the link provided by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sebastian earlier in this thread,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/">http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[1].) It would seem more probable to me that such ventures as MGL are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">actually losing DeGM money, and on economic grounds they should go<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Elsevier's way.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Now, what I'd urge Bill to do, before continuing to bash DeGM, is to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">compare their grammar production with those of CUP, OUP, Routledge <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">others, forgetting about Elsevier for the moment: these publishers do<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">make a lot of money from grammars and dictionaries and other<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">learning/teaching materials of English and a very few other "major"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">languages (and from long lists of linguistics textbooks, again often<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with a strong English focus), and they do not seem to channel much if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">any of their profits back into producing grammars and dictionaries of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"minor" languages.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"English Language" in particular is a huge industry in the UK (one of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the biggest -- if not THE biggest, along with hedgefond management <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">other frauds such as sports & betting (sorry, Martin, I don't want to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rob you of your obvious fascination with the Champions League)), and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">academic publishers are part of it. Regrettably, "other" languages <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">benefitting next to nothing from it, not even academically, with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"other" languages playing only a very minor and apparently shrinking<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">role in UK linguistics.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In short, I find it rather misguided and unfair of typologists, of <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">linguists, to specifically attack DeGM, of all academic publishers.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There would seem to be more obvious and more deserving targets for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">complaint.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This was only speaking to Bill's particular point. There are lots of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">valuable things being said in this thread on questions of quality<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">publishing with commercial publishers and otherwise.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Frans<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Bill Croft wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I see that my initial message has prompted a number of responses on<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">various topics that were connected to that message, but not directly<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">addressing the issue that I originally raised. That issue was that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Mouton is no longer offering a discount to INDIVIDUALS that put<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">their grammars in reach, at least for employed academics at<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">universities in developed countries. My point remains that Mouton's<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">new policy is putting their books out of reach of individuals, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that Mouton will actually lose more money (by not selling those<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">volumes at all) than it would lose if it kept the 50% discount (in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which case they would at least earn money from individual ALT/SSILA<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">members who bought the books - the numbers of which are so small<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it's not like they would have to do a money-losing print run to sell<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">copies to individuals).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I also raised the issue that the high list price of Mouton grammars<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">means that many universities cannot afford to buy them either. For a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">small, poor regional university like the University of New Mexico,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it is difficult to justify spending a large part of the linguistics<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">library budget on a grammar of a Papuan or an African language. So I<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">am willing to buy such a grammar for myself - if I can afford to.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But I no longer can, from Mouton at any rate.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This is not to deny that the issues subsequently raised - how<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for-profit publishers function as the gatekeepers for the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">dissemination of scholarly knowledge, accessibility of scholarly<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">research in poorer countries and to the native speaker communities,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">print vs electronic resources, and so on - are important ones.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Mouton's former policy for ALT/SSILA members made a small<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">contribution in addressing some of these problems, and was quite<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">laudable. Their new policy is a step backwards that is deplorable in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">my opinion.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Best wishes,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Bill<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Links:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">------<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[1]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/">http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/</a><br></blockquote><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>