From: Michael Mabe <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:38:45 +0200
I think the confusion about the size of the STM segment arises from a
misreading of Outsell and other data. The Outsell data for all STM is
close to the US$19b quoted in the thread below (US$20b in recent
reports). This includes not just journals but databases, secondary
publishing, medical data and geodata (which is huge). When Mark Ware
and I have tried to disentangle this for our figures in the STM Report
(http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf )- new edition
due in October - we estimated the contributions to overall sales of
journals to be about US$8b in 2008 which would be roughly US$9b at the
moment, allowing for sales growth.
Sally's observation about the size of the UK chocolate market is one I
have also made; we all think the STM journal sector is huge but it is
tiny compared to the consumer market, even for quite specialised
things. The total value of all UK journal subscriptions in one year is
also equal to the annual sales value for Christmas puddings.
Best, Michael
Michael A Mabe
Chief Executive Officer
International Association of STM Publishers
Prama House, 267 Banbury Road
OXFORD, OX2 7HT, UK
Mobile: +44 7717 343083
Phone: +44 1865 339321
Direct: +44 1865 339324
Fax: +44 1865 339325
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.stm-assoc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:36:58 +0100
There are no accurate estimates for the global value of the total
scholarly journals market (believe me, I've looked!). In 2010 Simba
estimated the market for English-language journals in STM (the largest
sector) at $8.147bn. This is pretty small in the overall scheme of
things - in the same year the market for chocolate and confectionery
in the UK alone was approx $7.72bn, according to KeyNote!
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:23:00 -0700
This is all very helpful. And it supports the view that no number
about publishing can be taken at face value.
Now for another number: Where in the world does that $19 billion
figure for worldwide STM journal sales come from? That's a huge
number. What could possibly be in there? Add up the journals
businesses at Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, T&F--and throw in Kluwer,
Sage, ACS, and some others, and you don't get near that figure, or
near 50% of that figure.
Joe Esposito
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:54 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:23:17 -0500
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Joe Esposito wrote:
>
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700
> >
> > Nothing new in this article for members of this list, but rather
> > surprising for its length.
> >
> > Can anyone untangle the numbers? Harvard's journals budget looks
incredibly low.
>
> The $3.75 million is just a subset of the subscriptions (coming from
> "certain publishers") which they claim have risen especially high in
> recent years. I can't figure the difference between "current serials"
> and "electronic serials" in the NCES database - and Harvard only has
> one year of numbers for e-serials (2010: $8.5 million) - but
> according to the most recent numbers, "Current Serials (which are for
> 2010, the year cited as the baseline, so not as much help) rose
> sharply and suddenly. On the other hand, it appears they were getting
> a good bit more for their money overall. Middle number here is
> "Current serials" expenditures; bottom number is "current serials
> held"
>
> 2000 - $8,533,502 - 190,528
>
> 2002 - $9,735,872 - 106,869
>
> 2004 - $10,497,758 - 100,009
>
> 2006 - $9,911.521 - 98,988
>
> 2008 - $9,248,115 - 110,628
>
> 2010 - $15, 233,300 - 157854
>
> So certainly these were cheaper in 2000, but since then both the price
> and the number of serials has held steady, till 2010 when they bought
> about 40% more and paid about 60% more. Again, this is for the period
> immediately preceding the baseline. Not sure of the overall budget
> today.
>
> > Also, 50% of all journals are published by a small number of
> > commercial
publishers? 50% of the dollars, perhaps, but 50% of the titles?
>
> No you are right: it is likely dollars. It is a misreading of the
> source (handily linked and open access), which states that:
>
> > Worldwide, the scientific, technical, and medical (STM) segment of
> > the academic journal publishing industry generates a little more
> > than $19 billion in revenue, with the top ten publishers accounting
> > for approximately 43% of that revenue, according to a recent market
> > research report referenced by Library Journal
>
> It appears that both this and the LJ stat are specific to the STM
> field. Though in that field, the article goes on to claim that,
> "Three giants dominate: Reed Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. Estimates
> indicate that these three account for approximately 42% of all journal
> articles published." But the citation for this is a report issued in
> 2002 by Morgan Stanley (i.e. now 10 years ago) on Reed's profitability
> and, so far as I can tell, it makes little mention of Springer. So
> not sure where they got that number.
>
> Sean Johnson Andrews
|
