3 ms·

How easy would it be for an open access startup to be profitable? I'd like to see the cause supported and this sounds like a fun way -- but it's not clear to m

How easy would it be for an open access startup to be profitable? I'd like to see the cause supported and this sounds like a fun way -- but it's not clear to me how that would work as a business.

michael_nielsen 15y ago
I'm not sure it's easy for many startups in any space to become profitable. However, it is possible. One open access startup that has met this challenge and come to profitability is the Public Library of Science: http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2011/07/2010-plos-progress-update/ http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2011/07/2010-plos-progress-update... They are now making a great deal of money, which is presumably why organizations such as Nature Publishing Group are looking at replicating PLoS One. There is a lot of online discussion of business models for open access startups. Here's one useful guide: http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/incomemodels/ http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/incomemodels/
- Thrymr 15y ago
  PLoS is a non-profit: http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/ http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/
  - michael_nielsen 15y ago
    My understanding is that they are making a great deal of money, which they reinvest in the organization. The linked post has a link to a document which includes their balance sheet. You are, of course, correct that they're not-for-profit.
Thrymr 15y ago
I think it would be very, very hard. You would need to provide something that existing for-profits don't do (open access), while also competing with non-profits that have the same goal. The problem is that scientists who care about open access are not likely to move their work to another for-profit enterprise. There are plenty of non-profit entities, from universities to professional societies to PLoS to the government, who have an interest in making research open, and don't need a profit (though they do need operating revenue). It's a tough sell to make your for-profit business the one that a scientist would submit papers to, or review papers for, when they could choose either an established for-profit with higher impact, or a non-profit.
impendia 15y ago
Unfortunately I think that academicians (of which I am one) are very, very conservative in this regard. The problem is that they have no personal incentives, and powerful disincentives, to cut costs. If it were otherwise, how the hell would Elsevier still exist?

How easy would it be for an open access startup to be profitable? I'd like to see the cause supported and this sounds like a fun way -- but it's not clear to me how that would work as a business.

michael_nielsen 15y ago

I'm not sure it's easy for many startups in any space to become profitable. However, it is possible. One open access startup that has met this challenge and come to profitability is the Public Library of Science: http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2011/07/2010-plos-progress-update/ http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2011/07/2010-plos-progress-update... They are now making a great deal of money, which is presumably why organizations such as Nature Publishing Group are looking at replicating PLoS One. There is a lot of online discussion of business models for open access startups. Here's one useful guide: http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/incomemodels/ http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/incomemodels/

Thrymr 15y ago
PLoS is a non-profit: http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/ http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/
- michael_nielsen 15y ago
  My understanding is that they are making a great deal of money, which they reinvest in the organization. The linked post has a link to a document which includes their balance sheet. You are, of course, correct that they're not-for-profit.

Thrymr 15y ago

I think it would be very, very hard. You would need to provide something that existing for-profits don't do (open access), while also competing with non-profits that have the same goal. The problem is that scientists who care about open access are not likely to move their work to another for-profit enterprise. There are plenty of non-profit entities, from universities to professional societies to PLoS to the government, who have an interest in making research open, and don't need a profit (though they do need operating revenue). It's a tough sell to make your for-profit business the one that a scientist would submit papers to, or review papers for, when they could choose either an established for-profit with higher impact, or a non-profit.

impendia 15y ago

Unfortunately I think that academicians (of which I am one) are very, very conservative in this regard. The problem is that they have no personal incentives, and powerful disincentives, to cut costs. If it were otherwise, how the hell would Elsevier still exist?