Bernstein Research has published an investment report on Elsevier in the wake of the UK Finch Report, the new RCUK OA Policy, and the OA announcements from the European Commission and HEFCE:

From the conclusion: We still do not know whether OA's moment is finally coming, after a decade (or longer) of failed starts. To the extent that this process is now driven by political decisions, it is always subject to changes and reversals. Moreover, the subscription publishers are large and well organized, so they will definitely move to lobby, both openly and behind the scenes, for reversing some of these decisions. Until now, apart from generic protestations about doing "what is right for science" which draw increasingly loud jeers from the scientific community, they have used arguments centred on the risk of job losses posed by OA, but have not provided much evidence for that. Of course, a significant revenue decline at Elsevier could trigger redundancies, and it is not apparent that OA publishers could compensate for those losses (after all, if costs and staffing levels are largely driven by article submissions, these are not likely to be much affected one way or the other by a shift to OA). On the other hand, more access to scientific and medical information may prove beneficial to society at large …
... Our analysis shows that Elsevier journal revenues would be under significant threat because the APCs it would earn for many of its publications are unlikely to prove anywhere near what the company needs to be revenue neutral, and it is difficult to envision APCs that are high enough for its leading titles (the top 5/10%) to make up the gap. The issue is posed by the very competitive APC price points offered by competing publications: except for leading titles, the real value of publishing on the "long tail" of journals (at least 50% of the titles, and perhaps as much as two thirds) is not distinguishable from that of competing journals.

More here [pdf]:

#oa #openaccess #Elsevier  
Shared publiclyView activity