From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:54:38 -0500 Many university presses in the US are units of public universities, and their financial records should therefore be publicly accessible. Sandy Thatcher > 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