Re: Homer Simpson at the NIH

Fred is correct. APS does _budget_ to make a small surplus
from 
its journals. Any _actual_ surplus is used to maintain our 
reserve funds. Income from the reserve which functions like
an 
endowment is used to make up for the (relatively small) 
shortfalls on non-income producing activities such as
promoting 
physics education and public awareness of science (because
we are 
a US non-profit, there are fairly strict limits on what we
can do 
in some areas such as lobbying). We used to budget for about
a 1% 
surplus from the journals, but it is too easy to end up on
the 
negative side, so we aim a bit higher now.

I believe, Sally, you had in mind PNAS which is required by
law 
not to carry money over from year to year. This makes it 
difficult for them when they try experiments like "OA
after 3 
months" and lose a substantial number of their
subscribers. I am 
not sure what happens to any surplus from PNAS or how they
deal 
with a loss, but they do live year to year.

Mark

On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:18 PM, FrederickFriend wrote:

> Sally,
>
> American Physical Society colleagues will correct me if
I am 
> wrong, but from my time on the APS Library Advisory
Committee I 
> know that APS always aims to make a small surplus. So
they ARE 
> a good example from an academic perspective: a society

> providing high-quality journals, not making an
exorbitant 
> profit, with a sound business model and yet willing to
adapt 
> that business model to a changing environment.
>
> Fred
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)"
<sallymorris-
> assocs.demon.co.uk>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:22 PM
> 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:  sallymorris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of David Prosser
>> Sent: 02 August 2007 20:22
>> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH
>>
>> Hi Joe
>>
>> A couple of quick points, if I may.  You wrote:
>>
>> 'In an alternate universe, where the NIH acted
thoughtfully and
>> responsibly, the NIH would fund and develop the
means to review
>> and publish material based on NIH research.'
>>
>> NIH already does fund the means to review and
publish material
>> based on NIH research.  NIH grantees can use part
of their funds
>> to pay publication charges in open access journals.
 In the UK
>> the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council
(our
>> equivalent of the NIH) also allow grant-money to
pay for open
>> access publishing.  No need to invoke an
alternative universe.
>>
>> 'Over time less money will go into maintaining the
current
>> system; smaller publishers, especially small
not-for-profit
>> publishers, will suffer most.'
>>
>> Is this true?  Robust figures on revenue and costs
per paper are
>> hard to get, but Elsevier 'needs' something like
$4000-5000
>> revenue per paper.  The American Physical Society
'needs'
>> something like Pounds 1500-2000 revenue per paper. 
If there is a
>> squeeze on the current system, which of these two
is better
>> placed to survive the squeeze?  Of course, some
small
>> not-for-profits 'need' more than the Elsevier
figure.  They will
>> need to look carefully at what they do and how they
do it.  My
>> advice, for what it's worth, would be to study
publishers such as
>> the APS and Hindawi (who make a profit on $800 per
paper or so).
>>
>> 'The overall costs of scholarly communications will
rise.'
>>
>> Maybe, but don't the overall costs of scholarly
communication
>> rise anyway each year - that's certainly the
feeling most
>> librarians have! Alternatively, and less
flippantly, it's
>> entirely possible that if we can create a new,
functioning market
>> then at least we may get better value for money.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> David C Prosser PhD
>> Director
>> SPARC Europe
>> E-mail:  david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk
>> http://www.sparceurope.org