[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reply to David Prosser
- To: "Liblicense" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Reply to David Prosser
- From: "Sally Morris \(Chief Executive\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:27:21 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
To answer Fred's question, Christine Baldwin did a study in 2004 for ALPSP and Blackwell which looked at just these statistics - see http://www.alpsp.org/publications/pub8.htm Sally
Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
Website: www.alpsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Banks" <pbanks@bankspub.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Reply to David Prosser
There is a third party. It's called the IRS. Anyone who cares to look into where nonprofits get and use their money can read 990 forms. Subscription and advertising income are clearly spelled out, as are the uses to which net income is applied. Monies tend not to pile up in bursaries, but to be put to immediate use for purposes such as research, education, and advocacy.
Peter Banks
On 9/18/06 6:16 PM, ""FrederickFriend"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
I applaud Joe's call for more evidence from the NFP publishers. It would be good, for example, to know what percentage of their surpluses they plough back into bursaries etc. I am prepared to believe that this "science dividend" is important, but if we are to take account of it in the move towards OA we do need to know how big a factor it is. From JISC's experience with NFPs in Mary Waltham's study for us on learned society business models, I know that societies are reluctant to open up their accounts, but surely they could trust an independent third party with the information. To answer the point about the effect of "big deals", they harm NFPs in transferring library money away from individual subscriptions (often NFPs) into block subscriptions from the major (usually commercial) publishers. Yes, libraries pushed for these "big deals" but are now beginning to realise the disadvantage in locking up a large proportion of their budgets. Fred Friend JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL E-mail ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk
- Prev by Date: IngentaConnect 2.5: new functionality, new publishers, new Google Scholar links
- Next by Date: Re: Confidentiality clause is back in at Nature
- Previous by thread: Re: Reply to David Prosser
- Next by thread: Re: Reply to David Prosser
- Index(es):