4 ms·

To cite just one example, Elsevier consistently reports over $1b/yr profit on $3b/yr revenue. Not exactly "almost nothing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsev

To cite just one example, Elsevier consistently reports over $1b/yr profit on $3b/yr revenue. Not exactly "almost nothing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/publishers-and-the-mit-faculty-open-access-policy/elsevier-fact-sheet/ https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-acc...

ikeboy 10y ago
If $2b of costs is almost no expenses, then surely $1b of profit is as well. You can't have it both ways, downplaying their costs and complaining about their profit.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Well, the $2bn of "publishing costs" include paying their CEO tens of millions a year[1], paying million-dollar packages to a number of other managers including Nick Luff and David Palmer, and dropping 1-2 million a year on non-executive board members who don't do anything at all. Besides, do you really think it takes 28,000 people to publish a single company's journals, given that the selection and review process is all being done for them on a pro-bono basis? There are massive efficiencies there - but the CEO of a 100-person non-profit couldn't justify a $30 million package, so there is absolutely no incentive for change. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=1244770&privcapId=402524 http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?p...
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    If you can do it for less, go ahead. The fact that multiple companies all have similar margins, and even open access (besides for the privately funded/subsidized ones) has the same order of magnitude charges makes me think it's unlikely.
    - acidflask 10y ago
      Actually, chemistry and physics do quite well with nonprofit publishers. Compare the profit margins of for-profit publishers with non-profit ones like the American Chemical Society. In 2015, the ACS made a $10m profit on $500m gross revenue, a much smaller profit margin. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs/financial.html http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs/financial.h... The smaller American Physical Society made <$100,000 on $53.5m gross revenue in 2015: http://www.aps.org/about/governance/annual-reports/ http://www.aps.org/about/governance/annual-reports/ So yes, it is possible to have high quality publications produced on much smaller margins. The question is whether it is possible to provide similar services for similar margins in a for-profit context. Given that for-profit companies, by definition, seek to extract the highest possible profits on what they do, one should really question whether it makes any sense for for-profit publishers to have the stranglehold they have on academic intellectual property.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        Why does the logic of "taxpayer funded research should be free" suddenly change when the publisher is a non profit? If that logic is valid, why is the $500 million fine? I should probably have said "similar charges" as I said later. Reducing the margins to nothing can at best reduce the cost by 30% or so, which I doubt would satisfy most open access advocates; given that, the real concern has nothing to do with publishers' profit.

ikeboy 10y ago

If $2b of costs is almost no expenses, then surely $1b of profit is as well. You can't have it both ways, downplaying their costs and complaining about their profit.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
Well, the $2bn of "publishing costs" include paying their CEO tens of millions a year[1], paying million-dollar packages to a number of other managers including Nick Luff and David Palmer, and dropping 1-2 million a year on non-executive board members who don't do anything at all. Besides, do you really think it takes 28,000 people to publish a single company's journals, given that the selection and review process is all being done for them on a pro-bono basis? There are massive efficiencies there - but the CEO of a 100-person non-profit couldn't justify a $30 million package, so there is absolutely no incentive for change. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=1244770&privcapId=402524 http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?p...
- ikeboy 10y ago
  If you can do it for less, go ahead. The fact that multiple companies all have similar margins, and even open access (besides for the privately funded/subsidized ones) has the same order of magnitude charges makes me think it's unlikely.
  - acidflask 10y ago
    Actually, chemistry and physics do quite well with nonprofit publishers. Compare the profit margins of for-profit publishers with non-profit ones like the American Chemical Society. In 2015, the ACS made a $10m profit on $500m gross revenue, a much smaller profit margin. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs/financial.html http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs/financial.h... The smaller American Physical Society made <$100,000 on $53.5m gross revenue in 2015: http://www.aps.org/about/governance/annual-reports/ http://www.aps.org/about/governance/annual-reports/ So yes, it is possible to have high quality publications produced on much smaller margins. The question is whether it is possible to provide similar services for similar margins in a for-profit context. Given that for-profit companies, by definition, seek to extract the highest possible profits on what they do, one should really question whether it makes any sense for for-profit publishers to have the stranglehold they have on academic intellectual property.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Why does the logic of "taxpayer funded research should be free" suddenly change when the publisher is a non profit? If that logic is valid, why is the $500 million fine? I should probably have said "similar charges" as I said later. Reducing the margins to nothing can at best reduce the cost by 30% or so, which I doubt would satisfy most open access advocates; given that, the real concern has nothing to do with publishers' profit.