Interesting post, but they could provide a simple comparison that would help enormously. They should calculate how much they would have paid on a traditional 10% royalty based on the gross amount the publisher receives and compare that with their 40-50% royalty based on their net (I'm calling it net here because they are deducting a bunch of fees from the money they receive).
Making the author pay editing costs out of their royalties and setting up the royalties as percentage of actual receipts rather than per copy sold makes them look more like a vanity press than professional. It may be worthwhile, but they need to provide more detail, a short article like this makes them look worse, not better.
