How much does publishing really cost? The Long Answer.

There is an article in a recent issue of the Guardian reporting on statements by the editor-in-chief of Nature, Phil Campbell. It says two amazing things. The less amazing thing is that he says open access is inevitable. The more amazing thing is that he says that the cost of to publish in Nature or Science is “in excess of $10,000″ per article.

Let me just write that one more time for people who don’t speak arabic numerals: in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars for a Single Article in Nature.

Now Nature is a pretty phenomenal publication, and I don’t doubt that it is expensive to produce, but I think most of us cannot fathom what it is that these publishers are doing that might result in such costs. $10,000 is, from the perspective of most anthropologists, is what it costs to do the research not what it costs to type it up. How can this be?

The second issue of Limn.

I can answer this. At least, I can tell you what the Good and the Bad reasons are for these costs, and why we should consider paying for the good reasons and stop paying for the bad ones.

The reason I can answer this is because I now publish an magazine– on the web and in print, called Limn. It’s free (as in speech) but it is also for sale (it’s beautiful, btw, and you should buy one, since I’m here explaining to you why you should). The three issues (comprising two print issues and about 30 articles) and website combined have cost about–wait for it–$10,000 to produce. Most of that has gone to the labor of a developer and designer (and anthropologist) who has done an absolutely amazing job. 30 short articles (about 2000 words on average), works out to less than $250 per article; probably less, since that price includes the start-up costs of creating and designing a going concern from scratch. The money came from a combination of research accounts, in-kind support from departments, and my pocket.

There is a huge difference between $250 and $10,000. And really the comparison between our little experiment and Nature is not fair to either side. However, I do think it’s fair to make a comparison with the AAA because the AAA is insisting that publishing is so expensive that switching from subscription to open access will ruin them. But from what I can tell, publishing in a AAA journal is significantly cheaper than $10,000, so it should be within reach of an alternative model. In January of this year, Oona Schmid, director the AAA publications program at the AAA gave a talk at Columbia (which also included our own Alex Golub as commentator; Oona starts at 13.10; Alex at 58.50). Based on her presentation and the AAA annual report from 2010, I have the following facts:

  • 2010 AAA members = 10,294
  • 2010 Meeting attendants = 5987
  • Number of Articles published in 2011 = 600
  • Number of Reviews published in 2011 = 482
  • Cost of Publication program 2010 = $965K
  • Revenue from Publication program = $970K
  • Cost recovery for Publications program from membership = 36%
  • from Library subscriptions = 63%
  • Revenue from membership in 2010 = 1.994M (34%)
  • Revenue from Annual Meeting 1.18M (20%)
  • Revenue from publications 970K (17%)
  • Revenue from investment 785K (13%)
  • Revenue from other stuff 16%
  • Cost of Publication program 965K
  • Cost of Public education 514K
  • Cost of Annual Meeting 391K
  • Cost of Management and governance of AAA 1.51M (p.s. someone might want to write a separate post about this number)

In her presentation, Oona showed a slide suggesting that in order to cover the costs of open access by membership fees, the average fee would have to increase from $81.63 to $175.49. Multiplying that difference by the number of members would imply that the AAA is earning about $965,195 from libraries who buy subscriptions, which accords with the claim about the publications revenue. But the costs listed in 2010 are less than the revenue, so why she says that membership dues contribute 36% to the cost recovery is a mystery to me. (And by the way, this is further confusing because if revenue from membership was 1.994M in 2011, that works out to $193 per member on average, which is $20 more than it would cost to have open access according to Oona). (And also by the way, none of these numbers allow me to know how much money is coming from, or going to, the AAA for their contract with Wiley-Blackewell, whose profit margin in 2010 was an equally jaw dropping 42%–nearly twice that of Apple’s).

But what’s interesting is that if this $965K number is correct for the cost of the publishing program, then using the 2011 numbers (~600 articles) that works out to ~$1600 per article. If you include reviews, the average drops to $890 per article. That’s still nearly 4 times as much as I am spending to publish open access articles, but it is not a jaw-dropping $10K. Nor is it what AAA folks have occasionally asserted is the cost of publishing an article.

Most publishers now offer an “open access” option by which you can pay an “article processing fee” that ranges from $1000 to $5000 (see Springer’s list of APCs). Nobody in anthropology wants to pay to publish their work, we being a poor people, but given what passes for market rates, the AAA’s cost would be a bargain if they chose to do that. But they don’t need to choose to do that, because they either already get enough from membership dues to publish open access, or they could do it by increasing those dues. The political problem of doing that is not insignificant, but if people understood what they were getting for their money (all the publications of all AAA publications available free to everyone in the world everywhere for as long as we pay our dues), they might just do it. Problem Solved.

But does this number–$1600–actually represent the cost of publishing an article? This is where the good and bad reasons need to be considered. The reality of scholarly publishing is that scholars do nearly all the work and don’t expect to be paid (beyond a salary) for doing so. We conceptualize, we write, we edit, we review, we peer-review, we seek our own permissions, design our own figures, tables and graphs, more often than not we copyedit as well. And we want to do all this. It means we are maintaining control over what we produce. That doesn’t leave much for a publisher to do, but it does leave some things: copyediting, design, printing services, legal and accounting help, web-site archiving, findability and indexing, and so on. Arguably as a small business I should be paying more for these services than a large organization that can negotiate better prices. Somehow I managed to do all this for $250/article or less. So claiming that this part is expensive is a Bad Answer.

The other reality is that publishers run real organizations, as opposed to a garage operations with no official employees. I love our new magazine, and I hope it grows… maybe even becomes part of a real organization, but it is true that it is limited in its flexibility, scope and growth by the fact that it is a labor of love produced on the side of what already feels like three different jobs. Running a real organization requires paying people who are good at it to be professional and to take responsibility for the realities of the market. That’s not free, that’s very expensive. This is a Good Answer, but only if the size of the organization is matched to those realities of the market–why have a huge organization for a product that has a very small market? That makes no sense at all.

But it may also be a Bad Answer because the costs of running a “real” organization have dropped dramatically in the last decade. There are now scores of service companies that parcel up and provide core business functions as simple fee-based services. Salesforce.com is the darling of this transformation, but there are thousands of companies that will take care of your accounts and your infrastructure, manage your brand, do your email marketing, find you employees or do “customer relationship management” for a fee. You can rent office space by the hour, and “cloud-based” webhosting by the minute. So “running a business” if that’s what I am doing, no longer requires any major investments. In the publishing industry, a lot of these sunk costs have gone into setting up supply chains and investing in publishing infrastructure. But somewhere around 2005, people figured out how to package and sell this too as a fee-based service. Enter companies like Qoop, Lulu and CreateSpace (the service we used, now owned by Amazon); because the whole infrastructure has been effectively standardized, it’s now possible to sell a publication almost as easily as having a yard sale. I say almost, because a yard sale can be physically and emotionally grueling, whereas publishing on demand is neither. Of course, if you don’t want your publication to look like crap, you need a good designer–and good designers cost money.

But maybe those prices listed above don’t represent costs–maybe they represent market value? Maybe the price that we and our libraries are willing to pay is in fact somewhere between $1K and $5K per article? This would be a Really Bad Answer. There are a number of absurdities here, but the most obvious is that the prices libraries and universities pay for access to big content are secret. They are negotiated confidentially and publishers work hard to keep the prices secret. They all have “published” prices for access, but no one really pays those prices except individuals and very small organizations. As a result large or rich institutions (like UC or Harvard) can command very different prices for access. So what publishers charge does not reflect what articles cost to produce, nor what people are willing to pay, it reflects how good publishers or their customers are at negotiating. And I’m not an economist, but because they must negotiate with every customer separately, and for every kind of access, it must cost an enormous amount (i.e. several full-time salaries for good negotiators) just to sell the damn content to the handful of people willing to buy it.

For a large organization like Wiley Blackwell (2000+ journals)–you can see why publishers force their customers to buy “bundles” of journals– they simply can’t afford to negotiate a price for every single journal with every single publisher. It’s freaking crazee this system. It’s like Wiley Blackwell is treating the global market for scholarly publications like an enormous Souk–haggling endlessly over every last ounce of content. Wouldn’t it be easier just to put a price on them and be done with it? Hint: the answer is yes, but it would cause their profits to fall, so instead they charge outrageous prices to cover the costs of charging outrageous prices.

The worst reason of course is that publishers think they are selling content, to which they expect to have all the rights. In reality what they sell are services–and they are services that are very valuable and for which we scholars should be prepared to pay if we don’t want to give them all our rights to the content. So unless we can move things towards a system where scholars pay publishers for a suite of services, rather than publishers charging us for access to content they own, then we cannot ever hope to have open access at any significant scale. Whether that price is $250, $1600 or $10,000 is what remains to be worked out.

So scholarly publishing is expensive for a bunch of bad reasons and a few good reasons. The amount we as scholars (and our libraries or institutions) should pay should correspond to the cost of the good reasons. There are two lessons to learn from this: 1) TINSTAAFL. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere has to bear these costs, whether it is the current publishers, the new breed of OA publishers, universities and libraries or we scholars ourselves… it’s not going away; but more importantly 2) We are currently paying the costs that correspond to the much more expensive Bad Reasons, and if we just stopped doing that, we’d have money left over for beer.

UPDATE: Apparently some people would like to know where I get the 42% profit number for Wiley. It’s from Heather Morrison’s dissertation: ” In the first quarter of 2012, John Wiley & Sons (2011) reported profit of $106 million for their scientific, medical, technical and scholarly division on revenue of $253 million, a profit rate of 42%.” I haven’t verified this claim.

Christopher M. Kelty is an associate professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has a joint appointment in the Institute for Society and Genetics, the department of Information Studies and the Department of Anthropology. His research focuses on the cultural significance of information technology, especially in science and engineering. He is the author most recently of Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software (Duke University Press, 2008), as well as numerous articles on open source and free software, including its impact on education, nanotechnology, the life sciences, and issues of peer review and research process in the sciences and in the humanities.

10 thoughts on “How much does publishing really cost? The Long Answer.

  1. Standing Ovation for this article Chris. “TINSTAAFL. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere has to bear these costs, whether it is the current publishers, the new breed of OA publishers, universities and libraries or we scholars ourselves”

    Finally someone highlights the critical issue surrounding open-access debates where you still find scholars reacting to corporative exploitation of academic publishing with the utopic image that OA journals can achieve professional quality output with no costs whatsoever because they are ‘online’ and not printed. (Also kudos to the Fortuns and their brilliant thought experiment http://www.anthropologiesproject.org/2012/03/liberating-cultural-anthropology.html)

    Peer-review is free.

    But copyeditors, proofreaders, typesetters, editorial assistants, IT people, art and graphics, managing editors, etcetera – do costs.

    Do they cost US$ 3,000-10,000 per article? No, they don’t.

  2. Thanks for this one, Chris. We definitely need more of these kinds of discussions, especially since the COST issue is often used to scare people away from looking at OA as a possibility. I hear this all the time: Sure, OA would be great, but the costs are ridiculous!

    Rather than sit back and let that stop things, I think that digging in deeper and really looking into the costs of everything is the way to go. That can kind of head certain conversations off at the pass, especially the more we know about actual costs.

    Also, kudos for highlighting the fact that OA will have costs, and that while having online tools and resources can cut costs, they don’t make everything free. So doing OA right is going to take a lot of work, and it’s going to require some investment. That’s the reality.

    But that reality is still a lot more hopeful than the one we are all mired in at present. I have no idea why so many of us anthros put up with it, and hopefully it’s only a matter of time before we decide enough is enough. Maybe articles like this will help push things in that direction.

  3. “Rather than sit back and let that stop things, I think that digging in deeper and really looking into the costs of everything is the way to go.”

    Yes.

    I know of some solid university press journals paying US$15-25,000 for editorial assistants, usually graduate students. Maybe this is an aspect which goes unnoticed but there are graduates making their living as editorial assistants of subscription journals. That obviously rises the question: who would do that work for free in an OA journal? Maybe 3-4 hours a day for day management of manuscripts, relations with reviewers, authors, editors, etc.? If you add those costs OA can indeed become an expensive business (not a US$3,000-10,000/article business though) But some believe that OA journals should function gratis and treated less than charities (which employ staff) and rely entirely on volunteers. That is simply not sustainable in the long term, if one aims for a high-quality product. Thus, it is not surprising that the most successful OA high-quality initiatives, like the Public Library of Science, put the economic burden on authors, asking a fee of US$1,350-2,900 for each article (http://www.plos.org/publish/pricing-policy/publication-fees/), although they do waiver fees in some circumstances. Would any anthropologists pay US$1,000 for publishing their articles OA? I’d be curios to hear what people thinks.

    I should conclude by anticipating that HAU’s Volume 2/1 (of imminent release) will publish an outstanding forum with an article by Daniel Miller on Open Access and Digital Anthropology followed by 10 responses of leading scholars from US, UK, France, Brazil, India, Japan and Australia: Don Brenneis, Kim and Mike Fortun, Chris Kelty, Alex Golub, Sarah Green, Carlo Severi, Carlos Fausto, Amita Baviskar, Atsuro Morita and Martha Macintyre. Expect interesting food for thought on OA and academic publishing from different academic realities.

  4. On formal scholarly communication system:

    Doesn’t that system reinforce the idea of high and formal scholarship as opposed to low and informal scholarship? Does that make citing professionally published articles more authoritative than citing blogs, online comments, interviews, and lectures and other stuff not published professionally?

    Since an Indian anthropologist who has been working independently on Panchayati Raj, a decentralized political and administrative system indigenous to India, and has never been peer-reviewed and published, are we going to exclude him in the scholarly conversation about decentralized governance and village politics? Isn’t it a discriminatory act favoring well-known and connected intellectuals over the independent ones who do research and write in isolation without expecting praise and reward but intellectual fulfillment and personal satisfaction?

    Does it also mean that, in the making of a list of experts, only the published and the peer-reviewed are included? Can’t a Chinese anthropologist not expertly talk–about the killing of children by adults in China due to social stress, for example–because he is not published and peer-reviewed? Will you then consider an American anthropologist who has written and published articles tackling the same subject more authoritative to speak than the Chinese anthropologist?

    Anthropologists need to learn a lot from Grigori Perelman. As far as I’m concerned, I see greed, pride, self-preservation and aggrandizement, dishonesty and disingenuousness, and systemic discrimination in the system that reinforces exclusivity and elitism in the production of knowledge. Is it really that embarrassing for a full professor to cite a blog post somewhere that gives him an idea? Is it really naive to cite a blogger who writes something that has never been written and published before?

    I don’t care if I will look naive, dumb, unprofessional, unscholarly and so low, I will use and cite anything I read that challenges me to think. Even if it’s from a lollipop wrapper, I will not exclude it.

    In my current creative nonfiction project, I feel that I have to be honest– I have to clearly express that the following was the public bathroom graffiti I read while throwing up and convulsively taking a dump from a bad tequila:

    “You laugh at me because I’m different, but I laugh at you because you’re all the same.”

    I checked who first said or wrote it. It was Jonathan Davis, the lead vocalist of Korn. You will then say, “low art”, but at least I’m intellectually honest.

  5. “Anthropologists need to learn a lot from Grigori Perelman. As far as I’m concerned, I see greed, pride, self-preservation and aggrandizement, dishonesty and disingenuousness, and systemic discrimination in the system that reinforces exclusivity and elitism in the production of knowledge.”

    Amen.

  6. Chris – thanks for the thought provoking observations. I will address your assessment of AAA finances more substantively in a separate post, but just as a point of clarification, I’d be interested in the basis of your claim that W-B has a “jaw dropping 42% profit margin – nearly twice that of Apple’s.” I believe this is way off the mark. In 2010, Wiley reported net income of $143 million on revenue of $1.7 billion, or 8.4%. In 2011, Wiley reported net income of $171.9 million on revenue of $1.74 billion, or 9.8% (see p. 30 at the link below).

    http://www.wiley.com/legacy/annual_reports/ar_2011/Wiley2011_Annual_Report.pdf

    Apple, in 2011 had net income of $25.9 billion on revenue of $108.2 billion (for a profit margin of 23.9%) and in 2010, net income of $14.0 billion on sales revenue of $65.2 billion (21.5% profit) (see p. 24 of Apple’s SEC filing).

    http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-11-282113&CIK=320193

  7. @M Izabel

    “I don’t care if I will look naive, dumb, unprofessional, unscholarly and so low, I will use and cite anything I read that challenges me to think. Even if it’s from a lollipop wrapper…”

    Nice. I totally agree. It’s the ideas that matter most…not where those ideas come from. You are spot on in my book. Thanks for that great line, M.

  8. @Ed Thanks for engaging, I look forward to as much enlightenment and dialogue as can be shed on this issue. It must be a good sign that after 10 years of trying to engage the AAA, I’m finally provoking a response :)

    The Wiley number is not false–I know how to calculate such things–but it is a narrow number–it represents only the STM division, and not the “Accounting for Dummies” entirety of Wiley. As such, it should be more, not less, jaw-dropping.

    But the point people should take away is not how much better or worse Wiley is doing than Apple, but how much better the big 4-5 for profit publishers are doing than the rest of the scholarly publishing industry, like university presses and small businesses. All those operations are fighting with WB for the same inelastic (actually, shrinking) pool of library subscription dollars–and so every dollar that WB extracts to give to AAA is a dollar not available to the university presses, small non-profits etc.

    The same pot of money that currently goes to subscriptions could conceivably be turned towards the production of open access scholarship, but not if those profit levels are to be sustained. From the perspective of someone in a public university that has been cut over half a billion dollars in the last four years–I have negative patience left for even a 1% profit margin built on the back of my library.

  9. Wiley’s profit rates are not the easiest to understand for a number of reasons. The 40% rate is illustrated in the 3rd quarter results for Wiley’s Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) sector: “STMS revenue for the quarter was up 3% to $245 million, including and excluding foreign exchange. Journal subscription revenue, digital book and reference sales and advertising were partially offset by lower journal reprint revenue. Direct contribution to profit for the quarter grew 2% to $99 million, including and excluding FX, due to top line results, partially offset by higher royalties”. From: http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-102762.html

    Comment: $99 million profits is 40% of $245 million in revenue. This amount is in some instances an understatement of the profits involved. For example, with Wiley-Blackwell journals, the royalties to society publishing partners (providing them with profits) are paid out before Wiley’s own profits are calculated. More information would be needed to calculate the real profit rate. However, I would argue that no further information at all is needed to illustrate that publishing doesn’t need to cost anywhere near as much as it does. Even commercial publishers using traditional methods could earn very healthy profits at much lower rates.

  10. Thanks for including the economics of the AAA in your analysis. In discussions of how to move toward OA publishing (or at least away from commercial presses), this angle is often left out of the conversation among scholars. It’s a little less opaque for university press publishers, who are more familiar with the costs involved in attending the annual meeting. That the AAA as an organization needs to generate significant income means that it will, inevitably, chose to partner with a commercial press who can maximize those profits.

    Working at the University of Minnesota Press, I am probably biased. But I will always be in favor of publishing happening at a “real” organization, be it a university press, another nonprofit entity, or a university department. The professionals we surround ourselves with — or the professionals an OA unit on a campus can surround itself with — editors, copyeditors, marketing staff, production assistants, etc. who understand the needs of scholars both on the authorial side and the consumer side will always be a “better answer” than commercial organizations like salesforce or lulu.

Comments are closed.