Re: Reply to David Prosser

["Sally Morris \(Chief Executive\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

Here's my rationale for being particularly concerned about 
smaller (and, yes, NFP publishers) in an OA environment

They tend to operate on lower profit (surplus) margins than 
commercial publishers - various studies have indicated ballpark 
margins (see, for example, 
http://www.alpsp.org/publications/pub8.htm) and others have shown 
that NFP prices, page for page, are lower

OA publishing is, in principle, no more alarming for small/NFP 
publishers than for large ones.  However, one of the 
(understandable) objectives of OA's enthusiasts seems to be to 
reduce the costs of the system.  This can only be done in two 
ways:  by reducing costs (which may be harder if you're small, 
with less leverage on suppliers) and by reducing profit/surplus. 
If you had less profit/surplus to start with, it stands to reason 
that a given reduction will hurt you more.

OA self-archiving is, potentially, damaging to both kinds of 
publisher;  if it transpires that users are perfectly happy to 
migrate to the 'good enough' free version, it would be bizarre to 
assume that subscriptions/licences would survive indefinitely. 
But once again, a publisher operating on slimmer margins will be 
more vulnerable.

There is a separate point (sometimes conflated with the above) 
about what is done with the profit/surplus.  NFP publishers, 
unlike their commercial colleagues, are not allowed, either by 
their mission or their tax status to disburse it into private 
hands.  They must plough it back into the pursuit of their 
organisational mission.  In the case of learned societies, this 
tends to be about support and dissemination of research, and 
public education.  It follows that in many ways OA is helpful to 
their mission;  at the same time, the other ways they achieve 
their mission (running conferences, offering bursaries, public 
education programs, even funding research) is often highly 
dependent, at present, on the proceeds of the publishing 
activity.

Thus, if the surplus is reduced, this will have a knock-on effect 
on the society's highly beneficial other activities.  It may not 
destroy the society, but it will very likely affect a range of 
its activities

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
Website:  www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Reply to David Prosser

> David Prosser wrote:
>
> "Could you provide a paper where the your claim that 'The call 
> for Open Access is simply diminishing the NFPs.' is explored in 
> more detail?"
>
> This is a fair question.  I know of no such paper.
>
> Perhaps this would be a good time for the participants in 
> not-for-profit academic publishing to offer their thoughts on 
> this matter.  In any number of offline discussions, I have been 
> told of the problems that OA poses for the NFPs, but David is 
> not out of bounds in asking to hear the evidence. Could the NFP 
> publishers who are part of this mailgroup share some of their 
> comments with David and others who are of his point of view? 
> If people keep silent, it is hard to see why the advocates of 
> OA would temper their activism.
>
> As some NFP staff members may have institutional constraints on 
> public statements, I would be happy to forward their anonymous 
> comments to this list, assuming I can get them by the stern 
> gaze of our moderator.
>
> There is one item in David's post, however, to which I am 
> compelled to respond personally:
>
> "It would also be useful to have an explanation for why in your 
> view open access is a greater threat to NFPs than, say, the 
> continued success of big deal offerings from large publishers."
>
> I don't know where this question comes from.  I have never been 
> a supporter of the so-called "big deals" from a library's point 
> of view. The "big deal" substitutes quantity for quality.  But 
> if these bundled packages have been successful, it is because 
> libraries [and/or their readers] have wanted them.
>
> Joe Esposito