Re: NFP publishing

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

According to the ALPSP/AAAS/HW study last year (borne out, I 
think, by others) sponsorship - whether explicit (e.g. grants) or 
implicit (institutional support, which may not even be fully 
understood by the recipients) - is a far commoner model for OA 
journals than author-side payment.  But does this scale for even 
a substantial majority of the 20,000 (ish) journals out there? 
Somehow I doubt it

I don't think publishers are rejecting author-side payment as an 
option - more than 20% in our latest study were trying it.  But 
it may not suit all circumstances.  I think we have to keep 
looking for other models to solve the growing imbalance between 
library funding and the amount of literature they want to acquire 
for their patrons.

Sally

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:56 AM
Subject: RE: NFP publishing


> > '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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Banks
> Sent: 20 April 2006 04:15
> To: RFeinman@downstate.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: NFP publishing
>
> Taxation without representation?
>
> A subscription is not a tax; it a choice to purchase 
> information. You might as well make the argument that buying 
> any Kraft product is a tax that forces you to support Philip 
> Morris and, by extension, cigarette smoking. You have a choice: 
> don't buy anything that's part of the Phillip Morris empire, 
> and don't buy Diabetes if you feel that the ADA empire is 
> guilty of something (like suppressing what you might see as the 
> truth of low-carb dieting). Start your own journal of 
> Low-Carbohydrate Science if you wish and if OA is as easy as 
> you believe; no one is forcing you to buy Diabetes.
>
> As for the contention that non-profit publishers should not 
> support other operations with any net income from publishing, 
> to do as you say would be a gross disservice to the public and 
> the clinicians and scientists we serve. Any money gained from 
> publishing goes into to things that support science: grants, 
> seminars, practice standards, education for young scientists, 
> and many other things. OA would mean a loss of subscription, 
> advertising, sponsorship, and reprint sales--and a loss of all 
> the things that NFPs do to support science. It is really time 
> to stop thinking naively about scientific publishing a 
> vacuum--it is one, but only one, way to support science and 
> research. We out to be looking at what NFPs put into education 
> and information as a whole, and the benefits in total that come 
> from that investment.
>
> I am frankly sick of the attacks on the segment of publishing 
> that supports free access to scientific information in a 
> sustainable, proven, and responsible way--non-profit 
> publishing. In any case, it's all an academic argument, because 
> as a model of publishing, OA is dead on arrival for most 
> nonprofits.
>
> Peter Banks
> Publisher
> American Diabetes Association
> Email: pbanks@diabetes.org