For 9 years now, thanks to your involvement, SciPost has grown into being recognized as an essential open science infrastructure. We are often touted as a template for journals of the future and case study in open science because of the clarity and (to scientists) self-evident nature of our principles, and because of our focus on quality-oriented, community-based services.
Our sustainability is however under threat. Our business model is virtuous by design and affordable by construction, but can only succeed with sufficient goodwill and support from academic organizations.
Last October, we circulated an Open letter to academic organizations in the hope of stabilizing our fundraising.
Unfortunately, this has not been successful. Our financial situation has not improved. In fact, it has deteriorated.
Only 147 out of 1351 (a mere 11%) benefitting organizations have sponsored us. Only 8 out of 73 countries have contributed positively to our balance. In one case, the USA, our expenditures exceed the support by more than 200k euros - more than a half-year's worth of activities for our entire operations. Determination and stamina on our side can only do so much, and can only compensate for a certain level of freeriding.
We have accomplished a lot this last decade. Things work well overall, but are not perfect. The throughput is high, but there are delays, blockages, disappointments, and we do not meet all expectations. We would do better editorially, if we didn't need to spend so much time scraping the barrel. To be fair: we have accomplished much more than could reasonably be expected from the few resources put at our disposal.
It's thus a simple observational fact that we are just not provided with enough fuel to accomplish and sustain our mission, which is honestly ironic because all the cost-slashing we achieve is to the direct benefit of those very academic organizations we are trying to convince to support us.
We are thus at a crossroads. Either:
Scenario 1 is the one SciPost has always put forward. So simple. So cost-effective. So beneficial for all. What is so difficult about it?
If scenario 1 fails, SciPost's Foundation, Advisory Board, Editorial Colleges and team will have to take some hard decisions.
Before SciPost gets there however, and as scientists and primary beneficiaries of our services, we are hereby begging for your assistance to help SciPost ensure scenario 1 happens (suggested action points below). SciPost's aim was always to empower scientists to take back control of publishing. We call upon you to exercise the power you have (your voice) to push your institution to do the right thing.
When I started building SciPost 10 years ago, I miscalculated how difficult it would be to convince academic organizations to support it, given their public-facing commitment to Open Access and publishing reform, and especially given the obvious fact that our successful operations directly translate into large-scale cost savings for them.
I guess they just need a bit more convincing. Maybe you can help. Together, we can do this.