[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Publishing costs
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Publishing costs
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:04:54 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
There has been some extension of this discussion off-list, which could more appropriately been on the list. Jan Velterop asked (and I quote with his permission): Sally, Am I correct that if I add up the median figures (450 + 75 [=3% of turnover] + 50 [hosting] + 300 [=0.30 per copy for 1000 copies]) I come to a cost in the region of GBP 875 (let's round it up: GBP 1000)? The figures seem to include direct staff costs. Am I correct in concluding that if these are the medians, reality is in a number of cases a lower amount? Am I correct in concluding from these figures that the median difference between income and cost per paper published is a factor in the region of 2.5? This is the median; wouldn't it be interesting to publish the range? "If I'm not correct, where does my reasoning go wrong?" and I replied to him and Sally: For most non-commercial organizations, an overhead cost in publishing of 50% would not appear to be intrinsically unreasonable. This increases the median costs to L1350-1500. It is I think generally accepted that the overhead costs of commercial publishers are about twice that of non-commercial, thus giving a median of L1750- L2000. To me, this implies that: a. Non commercial publishers claiming costs of L2000 or higher are operating at the expense level of commercial publishers. This may conceivably be justified for publications where the scholarly primary-article content is only part of the publication, such as Science or Nature or JAMA or BMJ. But such publications usually have extensive ads, which changes the revenue picture dramatically. b. Costs of under L1350 are likely only in the cases where the material needs little editing, such as Physical Review, or for bare-bones publication. c. If non-commercial publishers can overcome the barrier of transition costs, their lower overheads should put them at a great advantage (just like now). d. The figures seem to be reaching a consensus." David Goodman Associate Professor, Palmer School of Library and Information Science dgoodman@liu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morris (ALPSP) [mailto:chief-exec@alpsp.org] Sent: Thu 3/11/2004 7:08 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: Re: Publishing costs One source of such information is the benchmarking study of 10 publishers (2 commercial and 8 non-profit) which Alastair Dryburgh conducted in 2002 on behalf of ALPSP. Although the full report is not freely available (like all publishers, we had to recoup the costs somehow!), there's a summary at <http://www.alpsp.org/publications/pub6.htm>. I can tell you that the 'first copy costs' per article ranged from approx GBP 200 to 1200 (median £450) - refereeing (applicable, of course, to rejected as well as accepted papers) £30-145 (median £75). This figure included peer review management, rewriting, copy editing, typesetting. It did not include promotion to authors (median £25/paper), sales and marketing to customers (median 3% of revenue), distribution costs (median £0.30 per copy), or electronic hosting costs (£2-59 per paper, £2000-180,000 per title). Median income was £2400 per paper published. Alastair may be able to elucidate further. Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers E-mail: chief-exec@alpsp.org
- Prev by Date: Request response
- Next by Date: RE: Open access and impact factor
- Previous by thread: Request response
- Next by thread: RE: Open access and impact factor
- Index(es):