What Elsevier really said to the select committee

["Mcsean, Tony (ELS)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>]

Jan makes two assertions about Elsevier which are factually incorrect.

Elsevier did not tell the UK parliamentary select committee that industry
subscriptions to STM publications amounted to 30% of the total.  On page 9
of our written evidence, available at
<http://www.elsevier.com/authored_news/corporate/images/UK_STC_FINAL_SUBMISSI
ON.pdf>, we refer to an estimate that corporate organisations may
currently account for "around 20% of annual global STM journal spending"
and that under an author-pays OA model they would pay 10% of their current
costs. The 20% figure is an approximation based on SIMBA data
<www.simbanet.com> relating to institutional subscriptions to STM
journals. (Incidentally, using BMC's current prices, the figure would fall
from 10% to between 4.3% and 1.6%.)

To say that we "failed to substantiate figures" is incorrect.  We were
scrupulous in providing all of the information requested by the Select
Committee.

I don't wish to labour the point.  But in view of the seriousness of the
allegation - that Elsevier lied to a parliamentary working party - I
thought it important to put the facts on record.

Tony

Tony McSe�n
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier
+44 7795 960516
+44 1865 843630

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of JOHANNES VELTEROP
Sent: 05 January 2005 23:35
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription
Model

Don King recently presented figures (Cologne, Dec 6, 2004, download his
presentation here: http://www.zbmed.de/summit/PPking.pdf) that indicate
that, at least in the US, 7% of university research funding comes from
industry. When looking at his own university, the University of
Pittsburgh, he observed that industry was the source of 25% of "funds
leading to articles". In a production-based funding model for
publications, these would be the proportions of industry's financial
contribution.

Isn't there the possibility that the issue of industry 'free-riding' is a
smokescreen put up by those who would benefit from keeping open access
publishing models at bay?

The aggregate proportion of industry funding of *research* publications
through subscriptions I estimate to be below 5% (though it is likely to
vary by discipline). I am aware that Elsevier testified in the UK
Parliamentary inquiry that it was 30%, but apparently when challenged
afterwards to substantiate that figure, they couldn't or wouldn't. It is
in any event likely that they included in their figure *all* revenue from
industry, such as licence deals with MDL, other databases, books,
reference works, review journals, none of which which are, of course, the
subject of Open Access.

I'm ready to be corrected on the figure of 5%, if with auditable data.

Jan Velterop

Happy New Year to you all!