From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:25:02 +0000

A more recent study focused on societies is in the corresponding
section of the UUK OA Monitoring report (looking at financial
stability of learned societies), summary here:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2015/monitoring-the-transition-to-open-access.pdf
An updated version of the UUK OA Monitoring report is being worked on
at the moment.
Gemma


-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:58:15 +0000

Elsevier’s revenues and profits are a matter of public record.  It is
hard to see how open access advocates, or others, can be ill-informed
on this.

Joe claims to know "of many publishers (professional societies and
university presses) that lose money on journals”.  But wouldn’t it be
better to base this discussion on publicly available data rather than
anecdote?

Way, way back in 2004 ALPSP and Blackwell (as was) surveyed
journal-owning societies.  Two-thirds made a surplus and the mean
surplus was 15%.  (Although I would note that there were only 68
respondents and the responses may well be skewed towards larger
societies who have a better understanding of their finances and the
time to respond to surveys.)  It looks as if the report is only
available to ALSPS members:

https://www.alpsp.org/reports-publications/what-do-societies-do-with-their-publishing-surpluses-alpsp-and-blackwell-survey-2004/125790

I don’t know if there have been more recent comparable studies

David



On 9 Aug 2017, at 21:07, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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