tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post3758349588074340835..comments2024-01-08T08:39:39.026-08:00Comments on The Open Source Paleontologist: How Big Commercial Publishers Can Help ThemselvesAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-49344035963828879012012-02-08T04:22:47.662-08:002012-02-08T04:22:47.662-08:00More interesting still! So the back-of-envelope c...More interesting still! So the back-of-envelope calculation was that only $20 of the PLoS ONE's $1350 goes to support <i>all</i> the other PLoS journals.<br /><br />For myself, I think that is a perfectly good investment, and that it's healthy for the PLoS brand to have other journals than just ONE -- if only to defeat the unfounded assertions of those who claim that PLoS is just a dumping ground for weak papers. Having a journal with IF=13, leading its JCR category, gives the lie to such notions in their own terms.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-30202993986430676672012-02-08T04:11:32.369-08:002012-02-08T04:11:32.369-08:00I was referring to all other PLoS journals. I thou...I was referring to all other PLoS journals. I thought 'Flagship' was a subset of 'Community'. I stand corrected.<br /><br />The figure I was quoted (<$20) was a back of the envelope calculation by a PLoS senior employee at a conference. I never saw the calculation, she just quoted me the sum. I'd like to have an official figure, because I don't want to fund the publications of other people without good reason.<br /><br />I have argued with a bunch of the PLoS people in private (and posted it in public) that I'd prefer PLoS to phase out all their other journals and reduce the OA fee of P1 accordingly.Bjoern Brembshttp://brembs.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-48982244695896033252012-02-08T01:37:42.016-08:002012-02-08T01:37:42.016-08:00Bjorn, what do you have against the PLoS community...Bjorn, what do you have against the PLoS community journals? (That's PLoS Genetics, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, for anyone who, like me, hadn't heard the term before.)<br /><br />Are you still happy for your PLoS ONE fee to fund the PLoS flagship journals (PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology)?<br /><br />If the amount of PLoS one publication fee that goes to support the other journals really is as low as $20 (1.5%), then PLoS should make that figure publicly known, and dispose of the myth that PLoS ONE is single-handedly keeping the whole enterprise afloat.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-19435343325217694592012-02-08T01:29:50.880-08:002012-02-08T01:29:50.880-08:00For my next publication with PLoS One, I'll tr...For my next publication with PLoS One, I'll try and ask for a partial waiver: I'd like to see my fee reduced by the percentage that goes towards keeping the PLoS community journals alive. Last I asked, I was told it was less than 20US$ per article. The official numbers released by PLoS are not broken down by journal, unfortunately.Bjoern Brembshttp://brembs.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-29740703002281739802012-02-08T01:10:53.890-08:002012-02-08T01:10:53.890-08:00I thought the revenue generated through PLoS ONE w...I thought the revenue generated through PLoS ONE was to support the high running costs of PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.Raptor's Nesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01451618880276065935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-26301635085225193262012-02-07T16:14:31.370-08:002012-02-07T16:14:31.370-08:00Hence the point of my post - (some) publishers nee...Hence the point of my post - (some) publishers need to put up or shut up.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-52422004402813412502012-02-07T15:49:09.813-08:002012-02-07T15:49:09.813-08:00"If they can show that $37.95 is a legitimate..."If they can show that $37.95 is a legitimate price for an individual PDF, or that $12,000 is a legitimate price for a journal title, they could presumably shut down criticism that they're overcharging for their service."<br /><br />My point is, I don't believe they can show any such thing. If they did release numbers, and didn't fiddle them, those numbers would most likely show that $37.95 is <i>not</i> a legitimate price for access to a PDF. Which is why they don't release them.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-6155359098002734862012-02-07T15:36:29.107-08:002012-02-07T15:36:29.107-08:00If they can show that $37.95 is a legitimate price...If they can show that $37.95 is a legitimate price for an individual PDF, or that $12,000 is a legitimate price for a journal title, they could <br />presumably shut down criticism that they're overcharging for their service. (by legitimate, meaning that there is no way to charge only $5 or $15 or whatever the going rate should be)<br /><br />I too am curious as to numbers for PLoS ONE.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-30293885117620367042012-02-07T15:21:47.698-08:002012-02-07T15:21:47.698-08:00Needless to say, I strongly agree that it would be...Needless to say, I strongly agree that it would be great to see some actual numbers on all this from Elsevier. I am not sure I agree this would exactly help them: I suspect their lack of transparency is a policy rather than an oversight.<br /><br />And to be fair, I would like to see the numbers for PLoS ONE as well. Where does the $1350 go? Yes, it's well below half of what Elsevier and T&F charge for "sponsored articles", and for a much better product, but it's still good to know actual amounts.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-12942737333763559092012-02-07T12:24:56.298-08:002012-02-07T12:24:56.298-08:00Well, that#s the point, isn't it? If PE can do...Well, that#s the point, isn't it? If PE can do it for that price, a commercial publisher should be able to do it for what - double? Triple? Even if it costs them four times as much a price of some $30 or more per paper is simply not justified.Heinrich Mallisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195098490352297671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-26616076806508933372012-02-07T12:08:56.842-08:002012-02-07T12:08:56.842-08:00Thanks for the insight, Heinrich. As I'm sure ...Thanks for the insight, Heinrich. As I'm sure you realize, it's not journals like PE (published as a not-for-profit) that I worry about - it's places like Cretaceous Research, PPP, etc.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-57915678202729558912012-02-07T10:23:42.054-08:002012-02-07T10:23:42.054-08:00Let me put it this way:
Palaeontologia Electronica...Let me put it this way:<br />Palaeontologia Electronica published some 45 research and technical articles last year (I am not counting editorials, reviews, etc. - just to make that very clear). If each article would cost $25, and each article was bought about 10 times, the journal would, I guess, be financed. Only ten times - and that's without any library subscriptions etc. to bolster things further.<br /><br />So how much does copy editing and all the rest really cost? Especially when we consider that some big publishers these days want volunteers to do the grunt work for them.Heinrich Mallisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195098490352297671noreply@blogger.com