I think authors sometimes second-guess themselves by trying to name people whose (positive) opinion they think would impress their editor. We mostly already know those names.

These names are a chance to tell your editor whose (anonymous) feedback would make a difference to you and your writing.

Congratulations!

Congratulations!

Honestly, it feels like the ostensible request here is never what actually gets attention. It's either reversion to the status quo with a big for-profit multi-national or a radical structural shift.

If a for-profit provider is an issue, there are even multiple non-profit platforms that offer perpetual access. And have for decades. One of them offers it even if you cancel all your ongoing agreements with them! Another permits local archiving for use if you no longer have an agreement.

Importantly, Clarivate left themselves a substantial fallback position. Their Rialto platform still lets libraries do perpetual access purchases on sites other than Ebook Central. According to the Rialto website, that's 23 sites, some of which are multi-publisher platforms themselves. /2

Not to be flip, but its probably a bit of both. Very few presses are large enough to pick only one platform/strategy. That's one reason the Clarivate/ProQuest decision to drop non-subscription acquisitions on Ebook Central made such waves. /1

Publishing's not a bad fit for HSS graduate students, but these articles are always about books/journals, rather than being the copy-editor for the state lottery and gaming commission (the instructor in my c/e class) or proofreader for financial marketing collateral (my first freelance gig)

And a big thank-you to the Freie Universität Berlin and Andrea for making that happen.