Re: Science Commons, SPARC Announce New Tools for Scholarly Publishing

All,

I appreciate the support for Project MUSE that's evident in
this 
thread, and I want to assure readers that MUSE is aware of
the 
need to grow, adapt, and evolve as the needs, desires, and 
expectations of the community change.

The transitional era that Joe mentions is not over, and the

transition of MUSE from what it has been to what it will be
in 
the future is also ongoing. MUSE remains in a strong
position in 
that each year more titles seek to be included than we can 
responsibly add.  We have open and respectful dialogue with
the 
library and publishing communities, and value these
relationships 
greatly.  MUSE continues to fill a need shared by nonprofit

publishers, including many university presses, and
subscribers 
worldwide, and I have no doubt that as those needs change,
we 
will change with them.  As Joe alludes to, we're aware that
we 
can't meet the needs of every publisher or every journal,
and we 
are mindful of the difficult business decisions publishers
must 
make.

I hope that your support continues and that you will work
with us 
to retain the confidence of publishers and subscribers that
we've 
worked hard to earn. I'm happy to continue to answer any 
questions or listen to suggestions related to the evolution

that's underway, although perhaps that should take place off

list.

Best wishes,

Mary Rose Muccie
Director, Project MUSE
The Johns Hopkins University Press
2715 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
Phone: 410-516-6981
Fax: 410-516-6968
mrmpress.jhu.edu

>>> sgt3psu.edu 05/29/07 8:45 PM >>>

I can't speak for other publishers, Joe, but I can say that,
at 
least for Penn State, the revenue stream Project Muse
produces is 
quite sufficient to keep our journals afloat. Maybe we have
lower 
overhead than some of our peers.... 

>Sandy,
>
>We agree on your comments about the implications of the
author's 
>addendum, but I don't think this is the worst of Project
Muse's 
>problems.
>
>Muse is an artifact of a transitional era, a period when
income 
>was primarily derived from hardcopy subscriptions;
anything that 
>came from electronics was additive.  When the electronic
revenue 
>stream is the primary one, or when it is the sole one,
as 
>increasingly is the case, then Muse is not likely to
provide 
>enough income to its constituent journals to keep them
all 
>afloat.  The problem is simply that Muse doesn't cost
enough; 
>thus the sums it sends back to its publishers are
inadequate to 
>pay the bills.  We have already seen some defections
from Muse 
>on this account, and we can expect to see more. Muse's
problems 
>are despite the fact that Muse has been an outstanding
service 
>for the library community.  This does not mean that Muse
is 
>helpless or that innovative management can't develop a
new 
>strategy (yes, there are such strategies), but that even
without 
>having to wrestle with the author's addendum, Muse has a

>difficult road ahead.
>
>For anyone who wishes to challenge this point of view,
please 
>see Susan Skomal's post to this list a while back
concerning 
>BioOne ("For titles with very large and stable
traditional 
>subscription sales, however, BioOne may not be an
appropriate 
>choice": 
>http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListA
rchives/0702/msg00068.html).

>Skomal's post addressed a slightly different problem,
but the
>general issue is the same.  I am not suggesting that
Skomal
>endorses my point of view.
>
>Joe Esposito