From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:47:06 -0500
'I don't know about scholarly societies, but I've never heard of a
university press losing money on publishing journals unless it may be
an isolated journal or two where the press does not really have a
formal journals program. At all the presses I know about, there is a
surplus from the journals program that helps offset the losses from
publishing monographs.
Sandy Thatcher
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:26:17 -0400
>
> I believe that the amount of money going to "scam" OA publishers is
> small. Not zero, but small. It should be stopped, but it's hardly the
> biggest problem in scholarly communications today.
>
> I also agree with Jan that traditional publishers "stuff" their
> packages with lower quality journals. That indeed is one (not the only
> one) reason for large aggregations in the first place. But librarians
> are very good about studying usage and negotiating on the basis of
> that usage. So I think that "stuffing" is also a small matter.
>
> As for "super-profits," what are the numbers? Everyone always talks
> about Elsevier's huge profit margins, but I know of many publishers
> (professional societies and university presses) that lose money on
> journals. Does the industry *as a whole* make money? I don't know. But
> I would not be so quick to talk about super-profits without the data.
>
> Even assuming that there are indeed "super-profits," is it not
> possible that they are earned? Do you begrudge Apple the cost of an
> iPhone or HBO the price of a subscription? "Game of Thrones" comes on
> in a half-hour: to my mind (at least at this instant) HBO is quite a
> bargain. I feel the same about The New England Journal of Medicine,
> Science, and Nature. As Gertrude Stein never said, a bargain is a
> bargain is a bargain.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:27:18 +0000
>>
>> Thanks for reading my post, Rick - and responding to it!
>>
>> Of course, there are still single journal purchases around, but the
>> large money is spent on packages. And packaging can motivate sellers
>> to create low-level (to say the least) journals to stuff the package
>> with. I was responding to a point on traditional publishers, as
>> opposed to OA publishers, not having any motivation to create
>> low-quality jornals - in my opinion this motive exists, especially for
>> package sellers.
>>
>> The financial burden: A matter of scale here. Of course, APCs to scam
>> journals present a burden, but I have never seen any calculations
>> showing this burden to be near the level of burden the super-profits
>> of major publishers are. Super-profits are burdens, APCs to scam
>> publishers are more on the level of financial nuisances. So for "the
>> burden", stress the "the" to make it "the important burden". If you
>> have any fresh numbers on the total of APCs paid to scam publishers,
>> I'd be happy to get a link. It merits close following.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan Erik
>>
>> Jan Erik Frantsvåg
>> Open Access Adviser
>> The University Library
>> UiT The Arctic University of Norway
>> phone +47 77 64 49 50
>> e-mail [log in to unmask]
>>
>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:30:33 +0000
>>
>> >a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages
>> >may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase
>> >in titles and articles to justify price increases.
>>
>> I'm surprised by how often this inaccurate statement is repeated in
>> forums like this. While it's certainly true that libraries regularly
>> buy journals in packages (both comprehensive publisher Big Deals and
>> smaller, subject-specific packages), it is not true that libraries are
>> no longer buying individual journal subscriptions. At my institution,
>> for example, we have a Big Deal package with Elsevier, and large
>
> > subject packages with several other publishers. But we also have more
>>
>> than 1,000 individual journal subscriptions, and we make choices
>> between individual journal subscriptions on a pretty much constant
>> basis. This is also the case at every other research library of which
>> I'm aware.
>>
>> >b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon
>> >science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the
>> >profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP
>> >2016).
>>
>> I think you're proposing a false dichotomy, Jan-Erik. Why can only one
>> of these things be "the financial burden"? Can't subscription charges
>> and APCs charged by scam journals both be "financial burden(s)" upon
>> science?
>>
>> ---
>> Rick Anderson
>> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott
>> Library, University of Utah
>> Desk: (801) 587-9989
>> Cell: (801) 721-1687
>> [log in to unmask]
|