Wall Street and open access

Bernstein Research offers investment advice. Here's how they describe themselves:

Sanford C. Bernstein is widely recognized as Wall Street's premier sell-side research firm. Our research is sought out by leading investment managers around the world, and we are annually ranked at the very top of acknowledged arbiters. In independent surveys of major institutional clients, Bernstein's research is ranked #1 for overall quality, industry knowledge, most trusted, best detailed financial analysis, major company studies, most useful valuation frameworks, best original research, and most willing to challenge management. In Institutional Investor's 2010 annual client survey, the leading survey by which analysts in our industry are evaluated, 100% of our U.S. Analysts were recognized as among the best in their respective fields -- more than any other firm on Wall Street.

On April 20th, they released a report entitled Reed Elsevier: Is Elsevier heading for a political train-wreck?¹ Here's part of what it has to say:

We believe that Elsevier needs to rethink altogether how it thinks of researchers as customers, or it could end up, in a few years, facing the same hostility it encounters with much of the academic librarian community. Governments and other funding bodies may then look a lot less kindly on subscription publishers if they antagonize scientists as well.

Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring is starting a five-article series on how he thinks Elsevier should respond. The introduction provides some background for those who haven't been following the Elsevier boycott. It also explains that

[T]he world needs a flourishing ecosystem of different publishers.  Much as I admire PLoS, a PLoS monoculture in publishing wouldn't be in anyone's best interests.  We need competition between multiple publishers to drive prices down and services up, to keep everyone on their toes.

Here's what's coming in the posts to follow (quoted with minor modifications from the introductory post).

• [P]art 1 will discuss the easy things that Elsevier can and should do without even thinking about it.  Things that they should do now.
• Part 2 will talk about changes that will probably hurt them a little more to make, but which still need to be done as soon as possible.
• In Part 3, I'll look at the deeper changes that will be necessary in the medium and long term
• Finally, [he'll] top off the series with a few words about other barrier-based for-profit publishers.

I encourage you to head over and bookmark the site so you can follow the discussion.