[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What Elsevier really said to the select committee



Sorry, I was wrong again! Apologies. I mentioned 20%, but that was taken
from Elsevier's written submission, and referred to the STM industry as a
whole; David is right to point out that in the oral submission Crispin
said 25%, and he was referring to Elsevier's own revenue.

Jan Velterop

On 7 Jan 2005, at 22:59, David Prosser wrote:

I'm sure that for completeness Tony would also want us to note Crispin
Davis' oral evidence to the Committee, in particular his answer to
question 65:

'It also means a very significant transfer of funds from, for example,
the commercial sector. Twenty five% of our revenue comes from the
commercial sector and this could be companies like the Ford Motor
Company or Boeing or Merck Pfizer. Under the open access system they
would get all the research free of charge, they would pay nothing, while
the producing institutions, whether that is Imperial College or Yale or
Oxford, would be the ones who paid or the authors would pay. That is a
very debatable shift of funds.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/
399/ 4030106.htm

As industry is paying for a proportion of the research being carried out
at the producing institutions (as suggested by Don King's figures) they
would also pay for a proportion of the publication costs in an open
access environment. They would not, therefore, pay nothing.

Happy New Year

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail: david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Mcsean, Tony Sent: 07 January 2005 04:37
To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
Subject: What Elsevier really said to the select committee

Jan makes two assertions about Elsevier which are factually incorrect.
Elsevier did not tell the UK parliamentary select committee that
industry subscriptions to STM publications amounted to 30% of the total. On page 9 of our written evidence, available at
<http://www.elsevier.com/authored_news/corporate/images/
UK_STC_FINAL_SUB MISSION.pdf>, we refer to an estimate that corporate
organisations may currently account for "around 20% of annual global STM
journal spending" and that under an author-pays OA model they would pay
10% of their current costs. The 20% figure is an approximation based on
SIMBA data <www.simbanet.com> relating to institutional subscriptions to
STM journals. (Incidentally, using BMC's current prices, the figure
would fall from 10% to between 4.3% and 1.6%.)

To say that we "failed to substantiate figures" is incorrect. We were
scrupulous in providing all of the information requested by the Select
Committee.

I don't wish to labour the point. But in view of the seriousness of the
allegation - that Elsevier lied to a parliamentary working party - I
thought it important to put the facts on record.

Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier