From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:35:55 -0500

I heard somewhere that Hindawi does not provide copyediting. If that
is true, there is one source of saving right there.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:20:50 +0000
>
> Joe, you are right:
> High profit margins at Hindawi cannot be a result of their controlling
> a monopoly (or sale of aggregations). But only to a degree: They could
> be (and I believe they must be) a result of high prices in the
> publishing market, not connected to high costs but to monopolistic
> competition. No need for H to set much lower prices than competitors,
> but with low costs they can earn much money as long as pricing in the
> market is set by the large players who control monopolies, and how
> have high costs, often for historical reasons.
>
> The numbers I found some years ago indicated that Hindawi's 50 per
> cent profit margin came from APCs lower than Elsevier's per article
> profit. Which means that there is much room for cost-cutting and
> lowering of prices if a competitive marked for APCs can be created.
>
> The larger publishers won't have the creating of a competitive market
> high on their agenda, quite the opposite. So it is up to libraries and
> other buyer's or buyers' representatives to work towards such a
> change.
>
> Best,
> Jan Erik
>
> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:03:17 -0400
>
> I don't know what Hindawi's finances look like, but if they indeed
> have a 50% margin, more power to them. But let't not overlook that
> Hindawi is an open access publisher. High margins at H, if they indeed
> have them, thus cannot be due to a monopoly or the sale of
> aggregations.
>
> In general, I find discussions of publishing not to be anchored in
> evidence. That doesn't mean that the positions of OA advocates are
> wrong; it simply means that they are ill-informed.
>
> Joe Esposito