

Elsevier's profits alone could fund all academic publications as open access - MikeTaylor
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/

======
jules
> And remember that PLoS is now making a profit at that rate — no longer
> living off the grants that helped to get it started. At a rate of $1350 per
> article, it’s not just surviving but flourishing, so we know that that’s a
> reasonable commercial rate to charge for handling an open-access academic
> article with no limits on length or on number of high-resolution colour
> figures [...] So, yes, open access is cheaper. Stupidly cheaper. Absurdly,
> ridiculously, appallingly cheaper.

Open-access is still absurdly expensive. $1350 to publish an article in an
online journal, seriously? Unlimited length and colour figures in an online
journal? No shit. The cost should be exactly $0, since all the actual work
like reviewing articles is done by volunteers. I'm sure that many universities
and companies would be glad to provide free hosting for papers.

~~~
MikeTaylor
[I am the author of the original article.]

As other commenters have pointed out, PLoS do have costs. What's easy to
overlook here is not just the editorial work and infrastructure costs
associated with the articles that are published, but also the costs of
assessing the articles that are _not_ published -- that don't make it through
review.

I'm not necessarily defending the specific price-point they've set, but I do
think it's important that they (and other academic publishers) are free to set
a price that works economically: then they can compete with each other on
price and features, and, presto, we have an actual _market_. Whereas what we
have now in academic publishing is largely a cartel.

The great thing about PLoS is that they have shown, and are showing year on
year, that you don't in fact need charity to be a successful open-access
publisher. All the whining in the world from Elsevier and Springer about how
they need to charge absurd access fees -- all that whining is shown to be
nonsense by the example of PLoS.

Finally, it's important to note that PLoS offer no-questions-asked full
waivers of the publication fee, so that researchers without institutional
funding are not discriminated against. They're a non-profit: their basic goal
is not to "increase shareholder value" but to help disseminate science.

~~~
masklinn
By the way, since PLoS is a non-profit, do they publish their cost structure
anywhere? Is it possible to say where the money from a publication goes, for
instance?

~~~
MikeTaylor
Probably the best thing to point to is the PLoS Annual Report, which is at:
<http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/progress-updates/>

Unfortunately, it doesn't break down the operating expenses of $12.21M (2010)
with any more granularity than $6.68M on direct publishing expenses, $5.465M
on operational expenses and $65K on advertising & marketing.

~~~
masklinn
That's a bit frustrating.

~~~
MikeTaylor
I heard back from the PLoS people. (Aside: they are WAY more helpful to random
inquiries than any of the for-profit publishers). The best information on this
can be found in their tax returns, which are available at
<http://www.plos.org/about/what-is-plos/progress-updates/>

------
axusgrad
Things would be more expensive without a profit motive driving efficiency, but
maybe a change be a net gain. Pointing at the profit someone makes and saying
"we could be keeping all that money!" is oversimplifying.

~~~
MikeTaylor
An, axusgrad, that isn't it AT ALL. The point is "Look at all the profit WE
are giving these people. If we spent it differently we could make massive
savings AND give the world free access to our research."

------
yuhong
So could Elsevier and Springer be taken private?

~~~
anamax
Sure - buy "enough" stock and make a tender offer for the rest.

