RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

["Sally Morris" <info@publishingresearch.net>]

Rather than adducing average revenue per paper from flawed 
examples, why not ask a few publishers to tell you?

Bear in mind, of course (see Don King's latest article, among 
many others) that different journals have very different costs 
per article;  different organizations also need to make different 
amounts to cover overheads and profit/surplus.  Thus it's not 
possible to extrapolate generic figures from individual journal 
examples without a great deal of background information

Publishing Research Consortium
Email:  info@publishingresearch.net
Website:  www.publishingresearch.net

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 24 August 2007 13:58
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Sally

The really is getting to the point where we are splitting hairs 
However, as Mark Doyle has shown that you were incorrect in your 
assertions about the APS I am happy to revert back to that 
example.  (I think that in my original post dollars became pounds 
in the statement about the APS revenue per paper - I understand 
it is in the region of Dollars 1500-2000.)

David

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: 22 August 2007 19:05
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Optics Express charges extra for copy-editing if it is deemed
necessary. And it doesn't have a print edition.

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

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 21 August 2007 19:22
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Sally

I'm happy to use publishers other than the American Physical
Society as examples.  The trouble is that few publishers
(commercial or non-commercial) have been as open as the APS in
giving their revenue per article.  However, if you would rather
then let's use the example of Optics Express which I understand
makes a surplus (and is open access, incidentally) on a
publication charge of $1,200 or so (dependent on the length of
the paper).

Joe contends that if there is less money in the system it is the
big players who are best placed to survive.  I'm just wondering
if that necessarily true as some (not all, some) smaller
publishers (both commercial and non-commercial) appear to operate
on less revenue per paper.

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: 20 August 2007 19:23
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

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