LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  August 2017

LIBLICENSE-L August 2017

Subject:

Re: Incompetence vs. deception (Re: Beall speaks)

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 13 Aug 2017 08:29:34 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1