Re: PLoS Financial Analysis

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

Actually, the evidence suggests that PLoS is not moving in a 
positive direction and that it will never be able to survive 
without continuing grant support.

While fee income and advertising revenues rose from $750K to 
$900K over the past two years, costs rose from $1.5 million to 
$5.5 million. Were this a commercial start up, investors would be 
bailing out just about now.

Of course, it's fine if PLoS plans to survive largely on grants 
from the Moore Foundation and other sources. But no one should 
pretend that PLoS's business model, if it can even be said to 
have one, is applicable anywhere else.

On 6/23/06 12:21 AM, "Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> I feel an urge coming over me to defend an OA project which I shall not
> resist. All "traditional" journal publishers know very well that launching
> new journals, especially new journals with different models, is very
> difficult. I suspect and to some extent I know that projections are almost
> always over-optimistic.
>
> One is almost always running several years behind projections. What is
> important is to adjust to circumstances and that is exactly what PLOS is
> doing. They are honest about it. I would suggest that if the trend in the
> finances is going in the right direction there is a sustainable model here
> even if PLOS are not yet where they predicted that they would be.
>
> Anthony Watkinson
>