It's not about principles, it's about efficiency. 30% (if that is the number) is a huge markup. That's a lot of money that could be being spent on research and is instead mostly going to the shareholders of five publishing companies[0] . A few years ago, Harvard was spending about $3.5m on journal subscriptions[1]. That's about a million from one (admittedly big-budget) university alone, enough to cover the financial support payments of nearly three PhD students.
Part of the core business of universities is the production of research artefacts. Why shouldn't that core business also include making those artefacts available to others? Why not a subsidiary owned by a consortium of universities? Why not an organisation like EPSRC or AHRC, or even a national pan-discipline service provider?
Profit is what's left after the expenses have been taken care of. Salaries are an expense. Workers earning a salary are not making a profit, they are being remunerated for their labour.
Subcontracting to private companies is a good thing when your need for their services is subject to surge, or when your need for their services is so low that the overheads of DIY are prohibitive (Don't set up a whole in-house printing and binding facility just to do your glossy annual report, don't hire a full-time cleaner to keep your 5-desk office clean). If you are paying another company to provide a full-time, predictable service that is strongly aligned with your core business, then that is wasteful.
>It's not about principles, it's about efficiency. 30% (if that is the number) is a huge markup.
Then solve that by creating a new non profit that charges costs, or remove barriers to entering the business, and so on.
Complaining about the profit margins of a business while ignoring the reasons their profit margins are high (it's almost always because of barriers to entry) isn't useful.
>Why shouldn't that core business also include making those artefacts available to others? Why not a subsidiary owned by a consortium of universities?
That's a good idea, and I'd be all for it if they can do it. But while there isn't such a thing, complaining about high profits by companies providing a service is pointless, except to the extent you have an alternative or are pushing for one to be implemented.
Part of the core business of universities is the production of research artefacts. Why shouldn't that core business also include making those artefacts available to others? Why not a subsidiary owned by a consortium of universities? Why not an organisation like EPSRC or AHRC, or even a national pan-discipline service provider?
Profit is what's left after the expenses have been taken care of. Salaries are an expense. Workers earning a salary are not making a profit, they are being remunerated for their labour.
Subcontracting to private companies is a good thing when your need for their services is subject to surge, or when your need for their services is so low that the overheads of DIY are prohibitive (Don't set up a whole in-house printing and binding facility just to do your glossy annual report, don't hire a full-time cleaner to keep your 5-desk office clean). If you are paying another company to provide a full-time, predictable service that is strongly aligned with your core business, then that is wasteful.
[0]http://phys.org/news/2015-06-companies-academic-publishing.h... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-univ...