Two more postings (by the same two people) related to the Elsevier pricing policies...............DMD Subject: RE: Posting Elsevier Response From: "Ross, Robert \(ELS\)" Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:55:00 -0600 We appreciate and respect the concerns of the Topology Editors and we are taking the issues they presented very seriously. To be fair, they were not presented with the numbers in our response before they resigned. They did not make demands or requests of us and we do not want to make is seem as if there was any indication their decision was reversible. We were interested in retaining the Editors but again we respect their decision. We do greatly appreciate their long standing contributions to the journal. The numbers in our response indicate they were very successful in building and maintaining high quality and widespread interest. We intend to engage our other editors and the community more frequently. We also appreciate the alternatives to our program. Much here comes down to consumer choice. If there is an Elsevier journal you would like to subscribe to but cannot due to price, please let me know and I will try to assist. Sincerely, Bob Robert E. Ross Publisher, Pure Maths Journals Cell Press Offices 600 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 p. 617.386.2139 f. 617.661.7061 __________________________________________________________________________ Subject: More on Journals From: "Dev P. Sinha" Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:00:19 -0800 (For the list: Mr. Ross replied to me, claiming that access to Topology was not being restricted by price. He would prefer not to engage in a listserv discussion, but I would like to clarify a few points and then will let the matter rest.) Dear Mr. Ross, You said to the topology e-mail list that you welcomed alternate views. The alternate view here at the University of Oregon is that access to journals is being restricted by price. We cancelled our subscription to "Topology" last year because it was too pricey - $1558 in 2004 (vs. for example $170 for the same year of "Geometry&Topology"). This wasn't an easy decision - roughly 1/4 of our faculty and graduate students have a strong interest in topology. While we may be in the minority in having to do without "Topology", may I ask you how "Topology and Its Applications" is doing? Are universities lined up around the block to buy it at $3000/yr? Perhaps once it is packaged with other journals it costs $2800 or even $2000 (six times the price of G&T!) - is it selling like hotcakes yet? Will it continue to do so? You claim that you are not attempting to compete with university-subsidized journals, so the only relevant comparison is with other private publishers. But you _are_ in competition with university-subsidized journals, as well as society journals (which generally run a profit), and non-profit publishers such as MathSciPublishers. This is your business climate. Moreover, in mathematics you are selling the work of the mathematical community back to itself. You can say what you will about value added, but do you really think it is worth it for us to pay six times as much for one of your journals than for one we can produce ourselves? Given these facts about the business climate, it is not surprising to see a high-cost titles such as "Topology" in decline while titles such as "Geometry&Topology" gain in both prestige and pages published. If it weren't for the facts that mathematicians (especially those good enough to be editors) prefer just to do math, that we are fairly sentimental about the history of our journals, and that time is needed for "prestige transfer" for purposes of promotion and tenure, we would have already moved much faster in this direction. From the nature of your responses, you seem to think that you should be able to continue your pricing practices indefinitely. To summarize what I am saying: I seriously doubt that. You have gotten fat (see Wall-Street Journal the clip below) on mathematics library budgets for too long. -Dev (Note about clip: of course math titles are a drop in the bucket of Reed-Elsevier's profits, but this old clip gives you an idea of the company's mission. It's great that they are so into making money; as a community we mathematicians should be more into saving money.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ProQuest, an information service of the ProQuest Company Business Brief -- Reed Elsevier: Subscription Revenue Credited For Bolstering Net Profit 43% Wall Street Journal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Print Media Edition: Eastern edition New York, N.Y. Feb 21, 2003 ISSN: 00999660 Full Text: Anglo-Dutch publisher Reed Elsevier, buoyed by strong subscription revenue for its science and medical publications, reported sharply higher net profit and predicted double-digit per-share earnings growth this year. Reed, whose portfolio ranges from entertainment magazine Variety to the LexisNexis legal-information business, reported 2002 net profit of GBP 181 million ($288.9 million), up 43% from GBP 126 million the previous year, while pretax profit before exceptionals and goodwill amortization grew 9.3% to GBP 927 million. Revenue climbed 10% to GBP 5.02 billion. The numbers were right on line or slightly above expectations. Reed has fared better than many media companies because about 38.5% of its revenue comes from subscriptions, cushioning the steep world-wide advertising downturn. Reed Chief Executive Crispin Davis said the company wasn't seeking another company-transforming acquisition, after its July 2001 purchase of the U.S. education business Harcourt. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.