Re: Homer Simpson at the NIH

["\"FrederickFriend\"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk>]

Sally,

American Physical Society colleagues will correct me if I am 
wrong, but from my time on the APS Library Advisory Committee I 
know that APS always aims to make a small surplus. So they ARE a 
good example from an academic perspective: a society providing 
high-quality journals, not making an exorbitant profit, with a 
sound business model and yet willing to adapt that business model 
to a changing environment.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:22 PM
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

> As far as I know, the American Physical Society is almost 
> unique in being *required* NOT to make a profit.  Not only 
> Elsevier, but also all other commercial and most non-commercial 
> publishers, do need to make a profit (or, as the latter call 
> it, surplus)
>
> So it is not helpful, in this instance, to use APS as a guide
>
> Sally Morris
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: 02 August 2007 20:22
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH
>
> Hi Joe
>
> A couple of quick points, if I may.  You wrote:
>
> 'In an alternate universe, where the NIH acted thoughtfully and
> responsibly, the NIH would fund and develop the means to review
> and publish material based on NIH research.'
>
> NIH already does fund the means to review and publish material
> based on NIH research.  NIH grantees can use part of their funds
> to pay publication charges in open access journals.  In the UK
> the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council (our
> equivalent of the NIH) also allow grant-money to pay for open
> access publishing.  No need to invoke an alternative universe.
>
> 'Over time less money will go into maintaining the current
> system; smaller publishers, especially small not-for-profit
> publishers, will suffer most.'
>
> Is this true?  Robust figures on revenue and costs per paper are
> hard to get, but Elsevier 'needs' something like $4000-5000
> revenue per paper.  The American Physical Society 'needs'
> something like Pounds 1500-2000 revenue per paper.  If there is a
> squeeze on the current system, which of these two is better
> placed to survive the squeeze?  Of course, some small
> not-for-profits 'need' more than the Elsevier figure.  They will
> need to look carefully at what they do and how they do it.  My
> advice, for what it's worth, would be to study publishers such as
> the APS and Hindawi (who make a profit on $800 per paper or so).
>
> 'The overall costs of scholarly communications will rise.'
>
> Maybe, but don't the overall costs of scholarly communication
> rise anyway each year - that's certainly the feeling most
> librarians have! Alternatively, and less flippantly, it's
> entirely possible that if we can create a new, functioning market
> then at least we may get better value for money.
>
> Best wishes
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
> http://www.sparceurope.org