The fees that publishers charge to access peer-reviewed journal articles are not only varied, but the justification for such administrative costs are wholly created by the publisher. No action is more suggestive of a fox guarding the hen house. With the vast majority of scientific articles created and funded outside the publishers' control, finding a fair price for the administration of this information should clearly not be in the control of the publishers (News of the Week, A. Lawler, 22 February 2008, p. 1025).
The reader can easily estimate gross revenues for any journal through the circulation and readership information given to potential advertisers. For a case study, a well known science journal with about 100,000 members charges over $100 annually for journal and membership costs, which comes to over $10,000,000 annually, and is revenue related to a single core journal. This does not include advertising revenue magnified by its calculated "pass-along" readership. How are these funds used in relation to the maintenance of scientific knowledge, and who are the publishers accountable to in determining cost effectiveness? As private institutions, these policies are set by themselves. A recent study in the United Kingdom mirrors many issues facing North America (1).
Marvin E. Gozum
Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Reference
1. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39914.htm.
E-Letters: ![[Read E-Letter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
