RE: NFP publishing

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Peter writes:

>'OA would mean a loss of subscription, advertising, sponsorship, 
>and reprint sales'

Would it?  Some open access journals are seeing increased print 
subscriptions (e.g. those of the Indian Academy of Sciences). 
I'm not sure we have much evidence on the advertising front, but 
wouldn't an advertiser be as willing to advertise in a 
high-quality online open access journal as they would in a 
high-quality online subscription journal?

Sponsorship?  Well, a survey of the journals listed in the DOAJ 
noted that less than half relied on author payments, the rest had 
their costs met by sponsorship - either direct or indirect.  So 
it looks like sponsorship is alive and well in OA. 
(Interestingly, we are often being told that by relying on 
sponsorship OA is not a 'viable' business model.  Now we are 
being told there is no sponsorship in OA.  I'm afraid you can't 
have it both ways!)

As for reprint sales, I have heard anecdotal evidence of OA 
publishers being asked for reprints.  It may not be logical, but 
there are pharmaceutical companies out there who would rather get 
their 10,000 copies from the publisher than do it themselves. (If 
any OA publisher would be willing to firm-up my anecdote with 
firm evidence I would be grateful.)

So, in summary, I'm afraid I think you are wrong on all four of 
your points.

Best wishes

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Banks
Sent: 20 April 2006 04:15
To: RFeinman@downstate.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: NFP publishing

Taxation without representation?

A subscription is not a tax; it a choice to purchase information. 
You might as well make the argument that buying any Kraft product 
is a tax that forces you to support Philip Morris and, by 
extension, cigarette smoking. You have a choice: don't buy 
anything that's part of the Phillip Morris empire, and don't buy 
Diabetes if you feel that the ADA empire is guilty of something 
(like suppressing what you might see as the truth of low-carb 
dieting). Start your own journal of Low-Carbohydrate Science if 
you wish and if OA is as easy as you believe; no one is forcing 
you to buy Diabetes.

As for the contention that non-profit publishers should not 
support other operations with any net income from publishing, to 
do as you say would be a gross disservice to the public and the 
clinicians and scientists we serve. Any money gained from 
publishing goes into to things that support science: grants, 
seminars, practice standards, education for young scientists, and 
many other things. OA would mean a loss of subscription, 
advertising, sponsorship, and reprint sales--and a loss of all 
the things that NFPs do to support science. It is really time to 
stop thinking naively about scientific publishing a vacuum--it is 
one, but only one, way to support science and research. We out to 
be looking at what NFPs put into education and information as a 
whole, and the benefits in total that come from that investment.

I am frankly sick of the attacks on the segment of publishing 
that supports free access to scientific information in a 
sustainable, proven, and responsible way--non-profit publishing. 
In any case, it's all an academic argument, because as a model of 
publishing, OA is dead on arrival for most nonprofits.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org