Nature commente les difficultés financières de PLoS, signalées dans un précédent billet :

''As a US non-profit charity, PLoS must file its annual accounts to the Internal Revenue Service. Nature consulted these via GuideStar.org, a database that contains information on 1.5 million US non-profit organizations. The figures show that PLoS lost almost $1 million last year. Moreover, its total income from fees and advertising currently covers just 35% of its total costs. And although this income is increasing - from $0.75 million in 2003-04 to $0.9 million in 2004-05 - it lags far behind spending, which has soared from $1.5 million to around $5.5 million over the past three years.

To stay afloat, the firm continues to rely on the philanthropic grants that launched the project: $9 million from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and $4 million from the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, both based in San Francisco (see table image). These covered 65% of the company's operating costs last year, but are running out: at the end of last September, PLoS had assets of $3,393,265.

"We will continue to rely on philanthropic grant support for the foreseeable future," says Mark Patterson, director of publishing at PLoS's UK office in Cambridge, and "possibly always". Patterson adds that he is hopeful that the Sandler Foundation will provide more grants. "We will continue to rely on philanthropic grant support for the foreseeable future," says Mark Patterson, director of publishing at PLoS's UK office in Cambridge, and "possibly always". Patterson adds that he is hopeful that the Sandler Foundation will provide more grants....

"This demonstrates once again the fragility of the author-pays model," says David Worlock, chairman of the London-based publishing consultancy Electronic Publishing Services. (Worlock has worked with a number of publishing companies including Nature Publishing Group.) "It's a real giveaway if they are now saying that they will always need some philanthropic funding." But Patterson points out that PLoS launched most of its journals recently, and that income from these publications is only beginning to accrue. "The financial situation for this year will look quite different," he says. "I'm confident we can balance the books this year and next."''

Il est trop tôt pour des conclusions définitives sur le modèle de paiement par les auteurs. D'autant que PLoS raisonne sur un portefeuille de titres, tous très récents. Néanmoins, c'est un avertissement sérieux.

De plus Nature fournit un tableau intéressant de la répartition des revenus de PLoS :

Deux leçons à tirer de ce tableau pour nous :

- l'implication déjà notée des fondations :

- l'importance des revenus indirects. Dans d'autres pays (comme la France), l'économie des revues est largement supportée par des aides publiques ou para-publiques (CNL). Il serait intéressant d'avoir un tableau comparable. Il n'est pas évident, en effet, que la structure des revenus du modèle classique soit plus équilibrée dans de nombreux cas.

Bien des revues même ont une économie publique, si l'on tient compte de la totalité des coûts, notamment du personnel ou des locaux mis à disposition. Quelle est, par exemple, la structure du budget du Bulletin des bibliothèques de France ?

Repéré par P. Suber.