Re: Reply to David Prosser

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

There is a third party. It's called the IRS. Anyone who cares to 
look into where nonprofits get and use their money can read 990 
forms. Subscription and advertising income are clearly spelled 
out, as are the uses to which net income is applied. Monies tend 
not to pile up in bursaries, but to be put to immediate use for 
purposes such as research, education, and advocacy.

Peter Banks

On 9/18/06 6:16 PM, ""FrederickFriend"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> I applaud Joe's call for more evidence from the NFP publishers.
> It would be good, for example, to know what percentage of their
> surpluses they plough back into bursaries etc. I am prepared to
> believe that this "science dividend" is important, but if we are
> to take account of it in the move towards OA we do need to know
> how big a factor it is. From JISC's experience with NFPs in Mary
> Waltham's study for us on learned society business models, I know
> that societies are reluctant to open up their accounts, but
> surely they could trust an independent third party with the
> information.
>
> To answer the point about the effect of "big deals", they harm
> NFPs in transferring library money away from individual
> subscriptions (often NFPs) into block subscriptions from the
> major (usually commercial) publishers. Yes, libraries pushed for
> these "big deals" but are now beginning to realise the
> disadvantage in locking up a large proportion of their budgets.
>
> Fred Friend
> JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> E-mail ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk