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]