RE: Elsevier profit

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

These profit percentages need little interpretation. Revenues are just
rising fast, and costs falling, the difference being increased profit.
There may be a lot that's wrong with them being as high as they are
(though not for the shareholders), and some may find the profit levels
obscene, but it is not really the publishers' fault. In a market economy
their mission is to make as much money as possible. They just ask the
highest price and the greatest price increase that Academia is prepared to
pay (albeit reluctantly and protestingly). The envelope can be pushed as
long as the money keeps rolling in. Protests and reluctance do not devalue
the cheques when they are being paid into the bank account, do they?

Besides, there is nothing intrinsically bad about profits. Certainly not
as long as there is a sense of value for money.  But is there? Why does
Academia pay so much, and increasingly more? Because the value to them
increases dramatically?

More likely because journals are monopolies. Also not the publishers'
fault. The publishers are just exploiting monopolies that are being
created and maintained by Academia itself. Publishers cannot 'afford' or
be expected to reduce their profits voluntarily. They are not
philanthrophic institutions. Their shareholders wouldn't accept it.

Monopolies? Publishers do not compete on price. It wouldn't work. Articles
published in a given journal are unique and not available anywhere else.
Customers can't just take a subscription to 'Science' because it's cheaper
than 'Nature'. If they need 'Science', they are likely to also need
'Nature'. And so with most journals. Customers (read: institutional
libraries) have little choice. They *have* to subscribe to the journals
their patrons need.

Monopolies that are being created and maintained by Academia itself? Let
me explain. Publishers compete for papers. With journal titles that attach
labels of 'prestige' and badges of 'Impact Factors' and the like to their
papers. Academia sets great store by these labels and badges. Increasingly
so, seems to be the perception. Authors want the 'right' label or badge on
their papers. The label that is likely to increase their chances to be
funded again, to get tenure, to get promotions, to make their careers.
They are being judged on the labels and badges on their CVs. These labels
and badges are currently only provided by monopolies. By judging authors
on the labels and badges is how Academia maintains the status quo and with
it the monopolies. Unwittingly, perhaps? They sure don't benefit
financially from the monopolies; only the publishers do.

Authors *do* have the choice (at least where to submit). They just go for
the label. For the sake of their careers.

But authors don't pay. Customers pay for the label. So authors have no
incentive to submit their papers to journals that are reasonably priced.
And consequently, prices and profits stay high.

This situation remains unless the monopolies are broken. Assuming that
that is a good thing and in the interest of Academia. Breaking monopolies
can only be done by reversing the economic models so that publication is
paid for at input, by or on behalf of the party *with* the choice (the
authors), not by or on behalf of the party *without* choice (the readers),
as is now the case. Such a reversed model would not only deliver lower
prices, but far more than that. It would enable true open access, with a
dramatically wider dissemination of the papers published. For the sake of
scientific progress world-wide, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Problem: most providers of badges and labels don't offer such a reversed
economic model with payment at input and unlimited dissemination. There
are a few providers that do, but their labels and badges are not yet
widely seen as prestigious. More to do with time than with quality.
Multiply quality with time and you get prestige. Recognition of quality
takes time. Impact Factors of journals measure average citation rates of
papers published years ago. Remember the perception of Japanese cars or
cameras in the early days?

What can Academia do? Give authors a break and when it comes to tenure
decisions, promotions, funding proposals, et cetera, judge on intrinsic
merit of their papers rather than the badge attached to them. Support
monopoly-busting open access publications by paying on behalf of authors
for the publication of their papers at input. Draw attention to them and
incorporate open access journals in institutional web sites and
catalogues. Judge these new, young publications on intrinsic merit of
published papers rather than lose valuable time and wait until they are
old enough to be given the badge. Show leadership rather than reluctant
'followship'. Fortunately, an increasing number of institutions do.

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central: The Publisher of Open Access Journals
www.biomedcentral.com