RE: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Yes, apologies - for 'lower profits' read 'higher', of course

Sorry for the slip!

Sally Morris
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 15 June 2007 01:33
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC

Is there a typo in this thread?  As I read it, the assertion is 
that commercial publishers have higher costs and lower profits 
than NFPs. My experience is precisely the opposite, though I 
can't say that I have peeked at the income statements of more 
than a small fraction of the 24,000 peer-reviewed journals. 
Obviously, a lot of this is accounting methodology, and NFP 
financial analysis is rarely on a par with the commercials, but 
even so, my limited experience shows higher productivity and 
lower costs for the commercials by most management metrics. NFPs 
tend to pay people less, but have lower productivity for many 
reasons (not least being that they pay people less).

No doubt others have different experience, but I would really
like to see the data before making any generalizations.

Joe Esposito


On 6/13/07, Sally Morris (Morris Associates)
<sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm particularly interested in David's assertion that
> commercial publishers' costs are at least 50 percent higher
> than those of nonprofits, and their profits lower. This matches
> my own hunch, but I've been looking in vain for information on
> exactly this, and so would love to know his source
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk