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

[Ross Mounce]

Thanks Jan Erik for challenging my too modest assumption - I was hoping
someone would.

I completely agree that Elsevier journal subscription income is probably 1
billion USD (or more), much more than 500,000,000 USD as I had early
suggested.

This only goes to show the massive shortfall in our understanding of where
this total comes from?
We have data from Brazil, data from Russell Group universities in the UK...
we need far to more data to get a clearer picture of how Elsevier is
amassing its largesse of income from academic journal subscriptions.

I note that there are over 9000 universities in the world (
http://univ.cc/index.html) - not that all of these will pay Elsevier taxes.
Not to mention the countless (anyone have a sensible figure?)
non-university research institutes & businesses that have journal
subscriptions. I know from experience that many natural history museums, by
necessity have journal subscriptions e.g. the Natural History Museum
(London), the AMNH (NY), the Field Museum (Chicago)...

1 billion spread across 10,000 universities + research institutes +
businesses is only 100,000 USD per year per entity.

Thus > 1 billion USD income from Elsevier journal subscriptions alone would
seem (sadly) very plausible to me.

This wasted sum represents our complete failure to collectively bargain for
fair & equitable access to knowledge.
Without doubt we could provision this knowledge, open access for everyone,
for at least 1/2 to 1/10 of its current inflated cost!





On 30 April 2014 07:24, Frantsvåg Jan Erik <jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no> wrote:

>  Yes, an assumption of USD 500,000,000 would seem to be unreasonable – as
> in unreasonably low.
>
>
>
> Off the cuff: I did some calculations on Elsevier’s 2012 annual reports,
> this is cited from memory. There they reported operating profits of about
> 1.1 billon USD on their scientific publishing activities. This being a
> profit margin not far from 40 per cent, their income should be a bit higher
> than 2.5 billion USD – at least. How much of this is journal subscriptions?
> Probably more than half, so I think you could safely double your numbers.
> Trebling wouldn’t seem to be blatantly wrong, either.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jan Erik
>
>
>
> Jan Erik Frantsvåg
>
> Open Access adviser
>
> The University Library
>
> UiT The Arctic University of Norway
>
> phone +47 77 64 49 50
>
> e-mail jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no
>
>
> http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187
>
> Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* open-access [mailto:open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *På vegne
> av* Ross Mounce
> *Sendt:* 25. april 2014 14:12
> *Til:* Rafael Pezzi
> *Kopi:* open-science; open-access at lists.okfn.org; alangsmello at gmail.com
> *Emne:* Re: [Open-access] [open-science] Elsevier: some facts, by Tim
> Gowers
>
>
>
>
>
> Would it be unreasonable to suggest that a very minimum Elsevier get paid
> (globally) at least $500,000,000 USD for journal subscriptions, PER YEAR.
>
> Their ScienceDirect platform only makes available access to ~12,500,000
> articles (some of which are freely accessible anyway).
>
>
> May I suggest a very rough back of the envelope calculation...
>
> The length of Elsevier's copyright monopoly over scientific content they
> 'own' will be 70 years in most jurisdictions. This means they can continue
> to have the exclusive right to rent out content for 70 years after it's
> first production.
>
> They get approximately $500,000,000 USD per year (globally) for renting
> digital access to this content. PLUS single article purchase fees typically
> at $40 USD per person.
>
> 70 years * $500,000,000 USD / 12,500,000 articles = $2800 USD over the
> subscription-lifetime per article
>
> With a standard PLOS ONE APC of $1350 USD per paper, we'd get all the
> benefits of open access at less than half the lifetime cost relative to
> Elsevier's subscription model. Even cheaper with a SciELO*, or Journal of
> Machine Learning Research** (JMLR), Peer J*** , or Ubiquity Press ****
> style model.
>
> It's clearer than ever to me that with a little bit of long-term thinking
> - RENTING access to research literature is extremely expensive, relative to
> 'buying' lifetime open access upfront for a one-off fee for the services
> provided.
>
>
> I also can't hesitate to point out that publishers are constantly
> *increasing* the subscription prices they charge, at an above inflation
> level and have been doing so for years (google 'serials crisis'). Renting
> access to research has got to stop.
>
>
>
> * * *$200 - $600 "The SciELO Open Access: A Gold Way from the South"
> (2010) p123 http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjhe/article/view/479/504
>
> *** *
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/
> *** https://peerj.com/pricing/
> **** http://www.ubiquitypress.com/about
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
> Dr Ross Mounce, postdoc
> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
> University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
> http://about.me/rossmounce
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>



-- 
-- 
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Ross Mounce
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
http://about.me/rossmounce
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140430/045c82be/attachment.html>