From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:34:15 -0500

Subject: Re: Palgrave Open (monographs)

A mixed model, however, may well prove feasible as the OA book program of the
National Academies Press, emulated later by similar OA projects at Michigan,
Penn State, Bloomsbury Academic, etc., showed. Some revenue is derived in these
approaches from sales of POD editions, thus lowering the level of subsidy
needed to sustain them, whether from the author directly or from the press's
parent institution or from some other institutional source. Monograph
publishing has long involved subsidization to one degree or another. The
Palgrave model just takes it to one extreme.

Sandy Thatcher

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 07:20 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:13:36 -0500
>
>The figure is outrageous for an individual to bear.  I would add that
>as someone who knows how books are put together, I don't see how
>Palgrave can make any money at that price.
>
>There is a basic asymmetry in publishing, namely, there are more
>readers than authors.  An economic model that spreads costs across a
>publication's readership minimizes the cost to any individual.  That
>model is usually called traditional publishing.  A model that has all
>the cost borne by one individual is usually termed Gold OA.
>
>This asymmetry is not felt as strongly for single articles in narrow
>fields.  It is felt keenly for larger works and especially in areas
>where there are broad markets.
>
>It's often remarked that the output of university presses should be OA
>because their efforts are supported by their parent institutions.  But
>U. presses earn about 90% of their revenue in the marketplace.  The
>total subsidy to the U. press community is in the range of $30-$35
>million, about what it costs to run a single large library.  I do not
>see any appetite for the parent institutions to pick up the other $300
>million that presses now derive from their customers, only about 25%
>of which comes from libraries.
>
>There is, in other words, no known economically viable way to
>establish a comprehensive OA program for scholarly monographs.
>Niches, yes (I am working on one such project now), but not more than
>that.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>
>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:06 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:36:55 -0800
>>
>> I learn from humanities friends on Facebook of Palgrave Open:
>> http://www.palgrave.com/open/ -- and their attention was riveted by
>> this item on the FAQ:
>>
>> How much is the open access publication charge?
>> Monographs: £11,000 / $17,500 + VAT/taxes where applicable
>>
>> I would characterize their reaction as variously gobsmacked, outraged,
>> and spluttering.  That order of magnitude of money for publishing a
>> book is not something they can imagine committing to.
>>
>> Jim O'Donnell
>> Georgetown U.