RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Optics Express charges extra for copy-editing if it is deemed 
necessary. And it doesn't have a print edition.

Sally Morris
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 21 August 2007 19:22
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Sally

I'm happy to use publishers other than the American Physical 
Society as examples.  The trouble is that few publishers 
(commercial or non-commercial) have been as open as the APS in 
giving their revenue per article.  However, if you would rather 
then let's use the example of Optics Express which I understand 
makes a surplus (and is open access, incidentally) on a 
publication charge of $1,200 or so (dependent on the length of 
the paper).

Joe contends that if there is less money in the system it is the 
big players who are best placed to survive.  I'm just wondering 
if that necessarily true as some (not all, some) smaller 
publishers (both commercial and non-commercial) appear to operate 
on less revenue per paper.

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: 20 August 2007 19:23
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

As far as I know, the American Physical Society is almost unique 
in being *required* NOT to make a profit.  Not only Elsevier, but 
also all other commercial and most non-commercial publishers, do 
need to make a profit (or, as the latter call it, surplus)

So it is not helpful, in this instance, to use APS as a guide

Sally Morris
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk