RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

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

As far as I know, the American Physical Society is almost unique 
in being *required* NOT to make a profit.  Not only Elsevier, but 
also all other commercial and most non-commercial publishers, do 
need to make a profit (or, as the latter call it, surplus)

So it is not helpful, in this instance, to use APS as a guide

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

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 02 August 2007 20:22
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Hi Joe

A couple of quick points, if I may.  You wrote:

'In an alternate universe, where the NIH acted thoughtfully and 
responsibly, the NIH would fund and develop the means to review 
and publish material based on NIH research.'

NIH already does fund the means to review and publish material
based on NIH research.  NIH grantees can use part of their funds
to pay publication charges in open access journals.  In the UK
the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council (our
equivalent of the NIH) also allow grant-money to pay for open
access publishing.  No need to invoke an alternative universe.

'Over time less money will go into maintaining the current 
system; smaller publishers, especially small not-for-profit 
publishers, will suffer most.'

Is this true?  Robust figures on revenue and costs per paper are 
hard to get, but Elsevier 'needs' something like $4000-5000 
revenue per paper.  The American Physical Society 'needs' 
something like Pounds 1500-2000 revenue per paper.  If there is a 
squeeze on the current system, which of these two is better 
placed to survive the squeeze?  Of course, some small 
not-for-profits 'need' more than the Elsevier figure.  They will 
need to look carefully at what they do and how they do it.  My 
advice, for what it's worth, would be to study publishers such as 
the APS and Hindawi (who make a profit on $800 per paper or so).

'The overall costs of scholarly communications will rise.'

Maybe, but don't the overall costs of scholarly communication 
rise anyway each year - that's certainly the feeling most 
librarians have! Alternatively, and less flippantly, it's 
entirely possible that if we can create a new, functioning market
then at least we may get better value for money.

Best wishes

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org