[Open-access] [open-science] Elsevier: some facts, by Tim Gowers

Wed Apr 30 21:21:05 UTC 2014

Someone compared Elsevier's profit margins to those of Apple. If one
strikes us as excessive and the other as admirable, compare their
respective investments in research and development. It is safe to say that
Apple takes far greater risks, requires far greater up-front investments,
and needs a level of expertise that exceeds that of any publisher by orders
of magnitude.

Yet, Elsevier has a large profit margin, because it provides a service that
people/institutions are willing to pay for. The question is why.

Could it be because people do not pay for Elsevier services? Institutions
pay, and they pay with other people's money, be it government subsidies,
student tuition and fees, etc.

There is no point in vilifying any group. Everyone is just working within
an existing structure that, because of technology, has now become totally
obsolete. The problem, no one seems to have the courage to really break it
up.

With apologies for the title, but this old post is still relevant:
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/11/hitler-mother-teresa-and-coke.html

--Eric.

--Eric.

http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 04/30/2014 08:12 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> I separate the two issues:
>
> 1 are Elsevier (or anyone else) making inappropriate profits or charging
> excessive amounts?
> 2 are Elsevier (or anyone else) :
>   * failing to deliver what was paid for
>   * apparently breaking contracts or laws
>   * asserting ownership or control inappropriately
>
>  I will support people on (1) but my main concern is (2).
>
>
>
> Well, just for argument's sake, lets assume we fix 2, but not 1. What have
> we gained?
>
> * Elsevier (not the other publishers) deliver whatever it is they are
> being paid 5kUS$ per paper for. Hard to even imagine what that could be,
> when identical services can be had for 100US$ per paper.
> * Elsevier stops breaking contracts/laws
> * Elsevier actually fixes their software, such that the last three lines
> of fine print at the bottom of each paper are displayed correctly.
>
> Honestly, if that change were to happen tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice
> it, other than by the name Elsevier appearing less often in my Twitter
> stream... and even that I probably wouldn't even notice until in about 2
> years when I might, perhaps, wonder about the weird silence. :-)
>
> On the other hand, let's see what would happen in the very hypothetical
> case that we fixed 1 but not 2, by paying all publishers, not just Elsevier
> only their actual costs (which we now know lie somewhere along the SciELO
> costs of ~100$ per paper):
>
> *We have about 9.8bUS$ every single year to fix everything else that is
> currently broken. Then, nobody cares anymore what the fomer publisher
> Elsevier once did.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> Thus, as I wrote before, I still don't understand what gets people so
> worked up about Elsevier in particular. Once we spend the money for the
> right services, Elsevier and any publisher can stand on their head
> screaming and breathing fire and breaking laws all they want, nobody cares.
>
> Maybe I can understand what this is all about, if someone can explain to
> me what giving Elsevier a rap on the knuckles should actually accomplish in
> the grand scheme of things?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bjoern
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140430/fbda5195/attachment-0002.html>