[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide
- To: <alpsp-discuss@mailbase.org.uk>, "'Liblicense'" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, "'SOAF'" <SPARC-OAForum@arl.org>
- Subject: Re: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide
- From: "Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:38:09 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
We have to be careful not to confuse revenue per article (which is what these figures from Blackwell and Nature represent) and cost per article. The cost will, of course, vary widely - some publishers' processes may be more efficient than others', though I doubt the difference is vast; some do more work on articles than others; some add more features to their journals over and above primary research articles; some process many more articles per published article than others (Nature is an extreme example). There are various attempts to analyse these costs, some already published and others ongoing. Some of these studies include overheads, others don't, which also leads to confusion; but overheads cannot be ignored when looking at the costs which have to be recovered through one model or another. The difference between the costs and the revenue is the profit (politely called surplus in the case of not-for-profit - more accurately described as non-profit-distributing - publishers). Some of this is reinvested into the business - again, the amount reinvested varies, but the infrastructure for e-journals takes up a significant percentage, as last Monday's transcript reveals; some of it (in the case of commercial publishers) is paid in tax; and some is redistributed to shareholders (for commercial publishers) or used in support of the charitable purpose of the organisation (in the case of NFPs - hence the tax exemption). Let's be sure we are comparing apples with apples! Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers E-mail: chief-exec@alpsp.org ----- Original Message ---- From: David Prosser Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide For those who find this discussion rather abstract, the (uncorrected) transcript of the first evidence session of the UK Science and Technology Committee into scientific publishing gives us some hard facts: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/uc399= -i/uc39902.htm In answer to the question (No. 35) 'what is the cost to you of publishing an article, and what is the price you charge for that article?' Bob Campbell tells us that Blackwell receive =A31250 in revenue per article. That includes all print and online costs, profit to Blackwell (of about 15%), and royalties to societies (where the societies own the journals). Richard Charkin answers that the figures are 'more of less' the same for the Nature Publishing Group journals (with the exception of Nature itself). David C Prosser PhD Director, SPARC Europe E-mail: david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
- Prev by Date: RE: 25% of journal turnover from corporate subscibers?
- Next by Date: Re: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide
- Previous by thread: RE: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide
- Next by thread: Re: Clarification on misquotation of figure from OSI Guide
- Index(es):