From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:47:06 -0500 'I don't know about scholarly societies, but I've never heard of a university press losing money on publishing journals unless it may be an isolated journal or two where the press does not really have a formal journals program. At all the presses I know about, there is a surplus from the journals program that helps offset the losses from publishing monographs. Sandy Thatcher > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:26:17 -0400 > > I believe that the amount of money going to "scam" OA publishers is > small. Not zero, but small. It should be stopped, but it's hardly the > biggest problem in scholarly communications today. > > I also agree with Jan that traditional publishers "stuff" their > packages with lower quality journals. That indeed is one (not the only > one) reason for large aggregations in the first place. But librarians > are very good about studying usage and negotiating on the basis of > that usage. So I think that "stuffing" is also a small matter. > > As for "super-profits," what are the numbers? Everyone always talks > about Elsevier's huge profit margins, but I know of many publishers > (professional societies and university presses) that lose money on > journals. Does the industry *as a whole* make money? I don't know. But > I would not be so quick to talk about super-profits without the data. > > Even assuming that there are indeed "super-profits," is it not > possible that they are earned? Do you begrudge Apple the cost of an > iPhone or HBO the price of a subscription? "Game of Thrones" comes on > in a half-hour: to my mind (at least at this instant) HBO is quite a > bargain. I feel the same about The New England Journal of Medicine, > Science, and Nature. As Gertrude Stein never said, a bargain is a > bargain is a bargain. > > Joe Esposito > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:27:18 +0000 >> >> Thanks for reading my post, Rick - and responding to it! >> >> Of course, there are still single journal purchases around, but the >> large money is spent on packages. And packaging can motivate sellers >> to create low-level (to say the least) journals to stuff the package >> with. I was responding to a point on traditional publishers, as >> opposed to OA publishers, not having any motivation to create >> low-quality jornals - in my opinion this motive exists, especially for >> package sellers. >> >> The financial burden: A matter of scale here. Of course, APCs to scam >> journals present a burden, but I have never seen any calculations >> showing this burden to be near the level of burden the super-profits >> of major publishers are. Super-profits are burdens, APCs to scam >> publishers are more on the level of financial nuisances. So for "the >> burden", stress the "the" to make it "the important burden". If you >> have any fresh numbers on the total of APCs paid to scam publishers, >> I'd be happy to get a link. It merits close following. >> >> Best, >> Jan Erik >> >> Jan Erik Frantsvåg >> Open Access Adviser >> The University Library >> UiT The Arctic University of Norway >> phone +47 77 64 49 50 >> e-mail [log in to unmask] >> >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:30:33 +0000 >> >> >a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages >> >may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase >> >in titles and articles to justify price increases. >> >> I'm surprised by how often this inaccurate statement is repeated in >> forums like this. While it's certainly true that libraries regularly >> buy journals in packages (both comprehensive publisher Big Deals and >> smaller, subject-specific packages), it is not true that libraries are >> no longer buying individual journal subscriptions. At my institution, >> for example, we have a Big Deal package with Elsevier, and large > > > subject packages with several other publishers. But we also have more >> >> than 1,000 individual journal subscriptions, and we make choices >> between individual journal subscriptions on a pretty much constant >> basis. This is also the case at every other research library of which >> I'm aware. >> >> >b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon >> >science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the >> >profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP >> >2016). >> >> I think you're proposing a false dichotomy, Jan-Erik. Why can only one >> of these things be "the financial burden"? Can't subscription charges >> and APCs charged by scam journals both be "financial burden(s)" upon >> science? >> >> --- >> Rick Anderson >> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott >> Library, University of Utah >> Desk: (801) 587-9989 >> Cell: (801) 721-1687 >> [log in to unmask]