Comments on: JSTOR: where does your money go?

By: The New Information Feudalism

The New Information Feudalism — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:38:42 +0000

[...] few years ago one blogger, curious as to where this money goes, did some digging and looked into JSTOR’s annual 990 filings [...]

By: Civil Disobedience by David Byrne « General Strike USA

Civil Disobedience by David Byrne « General Strike USA — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:13:01 +0000

[...] Rossi writes—in the case of JSTOR, institutions pay a one-time Archive Capital Fee (which fluctuates based on size of institution and [...]

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:01:18 +0000

IEHO what JSTOR needs to do is to drop ppv fees to $1/article and become Itune like

By: Paywalls Académicos significa publicar y perecer – Opinión – Al Jazeera en Inglés « Jestoryas's Blog

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:26:52 +0000

[...] paga por su trabajo, ni los académicos que revisar eso. Los únicos que se benefician son los 211 empleados de [...]

By: Academic paywalls mean publish and perish | Ezymagazines

Academic paywalls mean publish and perish | Ezymagazines — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:24:49 +0000

[...] not paid for their work, nor are the academics who review it. The only people who profit are the 211 employees of [...]

By: The corruption of science and the need for more openess « T W A W K I

The corruption of science and the need for more openess « T W A W K I — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:27:30 +0000

[...] for by the public purse should be accessible freely to the public ; Scholarly publishing report ; Where does the money go? ; An $8 billion a year industry! ; Another NGO where salaries are exorbitant ; Making scientific [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:25:21 +0000

Income in 2007 was $125k or so, so it plateaued and then fell. I wonder what changed in 2009, and what the 2010 figures would look like... If you go back to 2006, the pay-per-view fees are literally only a couple of hundred dollars; this really threw me, until I discovered they only introduced it at the turn of 2007! The only explicit comment on use numbers I've noticed so far was in a followup post to the above, which estimated 6,500 for the first half of 2007; if that rate held up through the rest of the year, it'd be equivalent to an average of ten dollars an article.

ETA: by October 2007 "almost 17k" was being quoted. Extending that out to the end of the year gives us maybe 20k - assuming the revenue figures are accurate, that suggests the average fee paid was as low as $6.50 per article. That's much lower than expected, which suggests either that people only pay for the cheap stuff, or that the financial reports aren't quite telling us what we think they are. (These sections are a bit cryptic. I never did quite figure out what the "publishers fee" income was, either... but as it's still a six-fiugre sum in 2006, it can't be directly correlated here.)

By: Ben Schmidt

Ben Schmidt — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:53:33 +0000

I ended up here trying to confirm those low pay-per-view numbers; even more interesting is that the amount drops down to $80,000 in 2009, so it’s more recently just 0.15% of revenue. Basically, seems like they don’t have any interest in selling articles directly, and just do it strategically.