Re: What Elsevier really said to the select committee

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Sorry, I was wrong again! Apologies. I mentioned 20%, but that was taken
from Elsevier's written submission, and referred to the STM industry as a
whole; David is right to point out that in the oral submission Crispin
said 25%, and he was referring to Elsevier's own revenue.

Jan Velterop

On 7 Jan 2005, at 22:59, David Prosser wrote:

> I'm sure that for completeness Tony would also want us to note Crispin
> Davis' oral evidence to the Committee, in particular his answer to
> question 65:
>
> 'It also means a very significant transfer of funds from, for example,
> the commercial sector. Twenty five% of our revenue comes from the
> commercial sector and this could be companies like the Ford Motor
> Company or Boeing or Merck Pfizer. Under the open access system they
> would get all the research free of charge, they would pay nothing, while
> the producing institutions, whether that is Imperial College or Yale or
> Oxford, would be the ones who paid or the authors would pay. That is a
> very debatable shift of funds.'
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/
> 399/ 4030106.htm
>
> As industry is paying for a proportion of the research being carried out
> at the producing institutions (as suggested by Don King's figures) they
> would also pay for a proportion of the publication costs in an open
> access environment.  They would not, therefore, pay nothing.
>
> Happy New Year
>
> 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 Mcsean, Tony  
> Sent: 07 January 2005 04:37
> To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
> Subject: What Elsevier really said to the select committee
>
> 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_SUB MISSION.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 McSean
> Director of Library Relations
> Elsevier