The Guardian: Reed says enforced access plan is daft
‘Sir Crispin was asked yesterday whether the recent problems at Shell – which, like Reed, has a dual listing in the Netherlands and the UK – had caused it to reconsider its corporate structure. “Please don’t put us in the same category as Shell, he replied’
Richard Wray
Friday August 6, 2004
Sir Crispin Davis, the chief executive of leading academic publisher Reed Elsevier, yesterday branded as “daft” the idea that British universities should have to make publicly funded research freely available to all.
Last month a committee of MPs recommended that academic institutions must put a copy of any article written by staff and based on publicly funded work on their websites. This recommendation for so-called author or institutional self-archiving was seen as a victory for proponents of open access to scientific research.
Sir Crispin, whose company has spent tens of millions of pounds creating a subscription-based digital library of articles, said asking universities to also operate their own archives was “not workable”.
“To expect 250 academic institutions in the UK to do that is daft; frankly, the vast majority do not want to and the vast majority of authors do not want to.”
Reed Elsevier already allows academics whose research is published in its subscription journals, such as the Lancet, to post that research on their own websites. Sir Crispin said that universities did not have the time or the inclination to create their own, independent archives.
Persuading universities to host free copies of articles already accepted for publication in subscription journals is just one aspect of the open access movement.
Open access specialists have also emerged, including BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science. They charge academics to publish research on the net which can then be viewed without charge. The model presents a challenge to the traditional high-margin, subscription-based publishing model.
Sir Crispin said yesterday the scope of that challenge had been overstated.
“While there is still much publicity about it, in the marketplace the impact of ‘author pays’ continues to be low,” he said. Open access publishers account for only 1% of the total market.
Sir Crispin also repeated his concerns about the financial viability of these new publishers, saying the investment Reed has made in its digital archive, Science Direct, could not have been matched by these new players.
Reed’s online businesses, into which it has been pouring money over the past four years, helped the Anglo-Dutch media group report a healthy rise in half-year profits yesterday.
Reed saw profits before exceptionals and financial charges increase to £433m from £408m, but turnover dipped 3% to £2.26bn because of the weakness of the dollar, in which the group does a considerable amount of business.
Sir Crispin admitted that the first-half performance, which came in ahead of analysts’ expectations, was “distorted” by a number of seasonal factors.
Reed’s business division saw operating profits jump 17% to £129m as a number of biennial conferences fell in the period. Even stripping out the effect of those, profits ticked up 6%, reversing a recent negative trend as advertising – particularly in the recruitment sector – picked up.
Reed’s science and medical academic journal and book publishing business, Elsevier, saw turnover increase 3% to £631m in the six months to end June, but operating profits dropped 3% to £204m.
The first half of the year is historically the weakest period for the business. Elsevier has a strong book publishing programme over the autumn and the first-half downturn in profits is expected to reverse over the latter half of the year.
Sir Crispin was asked yesterday whether the recent problems at Shell – which, like Reed, has a dual listing in the Netherlands and the UK – had caused it to reconsider its corporate structure.
“Please don’t put us in the same category as Shell,” he replied. “Our corporate structure is very clear – we have one board, we have one non-executive chairman and one chief executive.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1277309,00.html
This website and sisters royaldutchshellplc.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.
Royal Dutch Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell had a close relationship with the Nazis during and after the reign of Sir Henri Deterding, an ardent Nazi, and the founder and decades long leader of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. His burial ceremony, which had all the trappings of a state funeral, was held at his private estate in Mecklenburg, Germany. The spectacle (photographs below) included a funeral procession led by a horse drawn funeral hearse with senior Nazis officials and senior Royal Dutch Shell directors in attendance, Nazi salutes at the graveside, swastika banners on display and wreaths and personal tributes from Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall, Hermann Goring. Deterding was an honored associate and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Goring.
Deterding was the guest of Hitler during a four day summit meeting at Berchtesgaden. Sir Henri and Hitler both had ambitions on Russian oil fields. Only an honored personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat.
IN JULY 2007, MR BILL CAMPBELL (ABOVE, A RETIRED GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERY UK MP AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS: 
MORE DETAILS:
A head-cut image of Alfred Donovan (now deceased) appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
