FW: NFP publishing

[<matt@biomedcentral.com>]

Peter,David,

I can confirm that open access publishers do receive a fair 
number of significant reprint orders from pharma companies.

The Bethesda definition of OA: 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition is 
actually explicitly framed to allow OA publishers to retain the 
rights to large scale printing and distribution.

BioMed Central and PLoS, in fact, have a more liberal definition 
of OA, which technically allows any kind of reuse and 
redistribution, including large scale reprinting. But pharma 
companies still come to us for reprints both because it is 
convenient, and because in doing so they are supporting the open 
access model (they know that if they did not pay for reprints, 
then OA publishers might in fact switch towards a Bethesda model 
of OA).

In terms of advertising:

In the print subscription world only a few high circulation 
journals really have any scope for selling advertising. But 
online, even small open access journals can generate incremental 
revenue from online advertising. e.g. few if any of BioMed 
Central's journals would have a high enough circulation to 
support print advertising, but online they are collectively able 
to deliver significant advertising revenue, which helps to keep 
the cost of BioMed Central's article processing charges down.

Regards,

Matt

==
Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
Publisher
BioMed Central ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/ )
London
Email: matt@biomedcentral.com

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: 22 April 2006 03:56
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: NFP publishing
>
> Peter writes:
>
>>'OA would mean a loss of subscription, advertising, sponsorship,
>>and reprint sales'
>
> Would it?  Some open access journals are seeing increased print 
> subscriptions (e.g. those of the Indian Academy of Sciences). 
> I'm not sure we have much evidence on the advertising front, 
> but wouldn't an advertiser be as willing to advertise in a 
> high-quality online open access journal as they would in a 
> high-quality online subscription journal?
>
> Sponsorship?  Well, a survey of the journals listed in the DOAJ 
> noted that less than half relied on author payments, the rest 
> had their costs met by sponsorship - either direct or indirect. 
> So it looks like sponsorship is alive and well in OA. 
> (Interestingly, we are often being told that by relying on 
> sponsorship OA is not a 'viable' business model.  Now we are 
> being told there is no sponsorship in OA.  I'm afraid you can't 
> have it both ways!)
>
> As for reprint sales, I have heard anecdotal evidence of OA 
> publishers being asked for reprints.  It may not be logical, 
> but there are pharmaceutical companies out there who would 
> rather get their 10,000 copies from the publisher than do it 
> themselves. (If any OA publisher would be willing to firm-up my 
> anecdote with firm evidence I would be grateful.)
>
> So, in summary, I'm afraid I think you are wrong on all four of 
> your points.
>
> Best wishes
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe