I just want to comment on one aspect of this posting and
ignore
Colin's ill-informed financial suppositions about the
incomes of
the big players. I am sure that he can get a grant to trawl
through the returns from the public companies concerned.
He and is friends ("a number of us in Australia")
are almost
certainly misinformed. If I was a journal editor would I
tell
Colin how much I earned? I would not.
I have never worked for Elsevier but I would be amazed if
that
company do not pay their editors and the editorial
infrastructure
well and at a rate rising considerably above inflation. My
own
experience of a publisher is along these lines. I have
worked for
Academic, OUP, and Chapman & Hall and I now work
part-time for
Blackwell - though I am not posting for them or from them. I
know
that all the editors whom I currently deal with get paid. My
memory is that this is true of all the hundreds of journals
I
have published in the past.
I am certain that Elsevier is not different from these
publishers
and I would very surprised if Australia was different in
this
particular way.
I know that there are some self-published society journals
where
the editor is not paid by the society. I came across one
example
the other day. However this editor was supported by an
impressive
paid infrastructure and he agreed that his successor would
have
to be paid.
My own experience of publishing, which is rather greater
than
that of Colin (now I know a publisher), is that, whereas in
the
past editors could use the resources of their departments,
this
is usually no longer the case in most parts of the world and
this
adds considerably to editorial costs. There are other
inflationary factors at work too. Because of the increased
pressures of academic life to do research and publish the
results, publishers are now frequently expected to
"buy-out"
consultancy time - at least in those disciplines where
consultancy is a fact of life and a reward that supplements
poor
academic salaries.
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Steele" <Colin.Steele anu.edu.au>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:43 PM
Subject: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate
'sprouts'
> 'EPS Insights' posted a cogent piece on 22 February
'Reed
> Elsevier: Looking Past Harcourt' by Kate Worlock. She
notes
> inter alia, that:
>
> "Reed Elsevier's total revenues rose 6% at
constant currencies
> to UKP 5,398 million, with adjusted profit up 9% to UKP
1,210
> million, giving an adjusted operating margin of
22.4%...
> Elsevier, LexisNexis and Reed Business all utilise
subscription
> models strongly and therefore have much more
predictable
> financial cycles than Harcourt, where the business is
strongly
> affected by adoption cycles and curriculum changes.
Elsevier,
> for example, performed particularly strongly in
subscription
> terms, reporting journal renewal rates of 97%. E-only
> contracts now account for more than 45% of Elsevier's
journal
> subscription revenues... Reed Elsevier post-Harcourt
will have
> a far stronger focus on subscription-based products
around
> which the group intends to place longer-term contracts
where
> possible."
>
> As financial analysts have often mentioned, eg at
Fiesole
> Oxford 2003, the serials business is an increasingly
lucrative
> one for the big players. In how many other business
moreover
> does the customer pay for the product a year or more in
advance
> of its receipt, as libraries do in serial
subscriptions?
>
> In the light of the comments after the Brussels
Declaration on
> STM Publishing, readers of the list might be interested
in the
> lengthy seven page submission which Elsevier made in
late
> December to the Australian Productivity Commission's
draft
> report 'Public Support for Science and Innovation'.
> (
http://www.pc.gov.au/study/science/subs/subdr157.pdf)
>
> Some of the comments there will stimulate further
debate but
> herewith some reflections in relation to some earlier
postings
> on this list.
>
> On the first page, Elsevier say that they have 1,400
Australian
> editors and editorial board members. A number of us in
> Australia have yet to find any form of substantial
remuneration
> to these editors and board members, either in terms of
salary
> or office space, highlighting the point that much
unpaid
> academic work goes into the productions of journals in
addition
> to the institutional and taxpayer funded components of
the
> original research, see
> http://ds
pace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485.
>
> This is particularly relevant also in the context of
peer
> review, which seems to be increasingly used by
publishers as a
> dramatic 'sine qua non' bargaining chip. Elsevier
comments that
> a research council mandate "could result in a
significant loss
> of the investment in peer review and could lead to
break downs
> in this intricate and vital system" and "the
possible reduction
> in the number of peer reviewed journals".
>
> Australian authors whom they claim would be
disadvantaged have
> a greater ability to reach a global market in most
disciplines
> through the variety of Open Access options currently
available.
>
> The statement that "STM publishing is a finely
balanced, highly
> balanced system that works well" is one that is
currently being
> vigorously debated but the current system, from 'The
Big Deal'
> onwards, clearly benefits the major publishers to the
detriment
> of learned societies, smaller publishers, particularly
those in
> the Social Sciences and Humanities. The recent debate
in Norway
> on the Blackwell Big Deal 'collapse' reflects these
tensions.
>
> No-one disputes that publishers "need to recoup
the significant
> investments that they make", for example in
platforms, products
> like Scopus, etc. The question is what is the nature of
the
> profits on top of those investment returns in terms of
the
> potential of the digital Open Access repository
environment in
> social and economic benefits.
>
> Elsevier's comment to the Productivity Commission that
a
> "network of repositories could lead to a reduction
in quality
> assurance levels" misunderstands the checks and
balances that
> many repositories maintain between categories of
material, such
> as California eScholarship. The Elsevier page 3
criticisms of
> repositories is selective, particularly in the context
of
> access. Articles deposited in the ANU E-Prints, like
those of
> QUT, have resulted in significant Open Access
penetration of
> the global academic community in the Social Sciences
and
> Humanities, which would not have been achieved by
conventional
> publishers in those disciplines. Clearly programmes of
> scholarly communication, from the top downwards, need
to be
> instituted with academic researchers on campuses to
cover such
> issues as the benefits of repositories, copyright and
> licensing, research quality and impact factors, etc.
>
> The Australian Department of Education, Science and
Training
> (DEST) Report to the Productivity Commission, in
contrast to
> Elsevier, reaffirms "the Accessibility Framework,
currently
> being developed by DEST" makes "it possible
for research
> conducted in Australian higher education providers to
be
> discoverable, accessible and shareable. DEST considers
that the
> system-wide use of repositories beginning with the RQF
will
> lead to significant benefits for Australia". The
Australian
> Government is providing $25.5 (AUS) million through the
> Australian Scheme for Higher Education Repositories
(ASHER)
> over three years to assist with the establishment of
digital
> repositories in Australian universities.
>
> To conclude, Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Professor of
Law at
> Queensland University of Technology, in his article,
'Building
> Blocks for the Australian Accessibility Framework',
(Campus
> Review, 30 January) notes "the steps by the
Australian Research
> Council and the National Health and Medical Research
Council to
> provide further foundation to the Australian
Accessibility
> Framework display important institutional leadership
for the
> extremely worthy endeavour of promoting broader scale
access to
> knowledge for social and economic reasons... built on
strategic
> copyright management practices and effective engagement
with
> the established publishing industry". The debate
clearly
> continues in Australia, with the Productivity
Commission
> handing down its final report in early March.
>
> Colin Steele
> Emeritus Fellow
> The Australian National University
> Canberra ACT 0200
> Australia
> Email: colin.steeleanu.edu.au
>
> University Librarian, Australian National University
(1980-2002)
> and Director Scholarly Information Strategies
(2002-2003)
|
