research and ranking subscription charges

• Rights Issue
• SEBI IPO Status
• Live Subscription
• Allotment Status
• Shareholder Quota
• Market Holidays

Top 10 Most Expensive Stocks In India 2024

Updater Services: A Unique Model Combining Facility Management and Business Support…

Best IPO Stocks That Doubled Investors’ Money

Best Option Trading Strategies For Beginners

NSCCL- 7 Most Important Points about NSE Clearing

• Mainboard IPOs in 2024
• Mainboard IPOs in 2023
• Mainboard IPOs in 2022
• Mainboard IPOs in 2021
• Mainboard IPOs in 2020
• Mainboard IPOs in 2019
• Mainboard IPOs in 2018
• Mainboard IPOs in 2017
• Mainboard IPOs in 2016
• SME IPOs in 2024
• SME IPOs in 2023
• SME IPOs in 2022
• SME IPOs in 2021
• SME IPOs in 2020
• SME IPOs in 2019
• SME IPOs in 2018
• SME IPOs in 2017

My Mudra Fincorp IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Mach Conferences IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Excellent Wires IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Namo eWaste IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Trafiksol ITS IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Premier Energies IPO Allotment – Effective Ways to Check Allocation Status

ECOS Mobility IPO Review: Key Points Investors Should Know

ECOS Mobility IPO Subscription – Live Status

Premier Energies IPO Subscription – Live Status

Gala Precision IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Jay Bee Laminations IPO Allotment – 3 Ways to Check Allotment…

Indian Phosphate IPO Allotment – 3 Ways to Check Allotment Status

Srivari Spices Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Orient Technologies IPO Review: 10 Key Points Investors Should Know

Sanstar IPO Analysis: A Compelling Opportunity for Investors

Hyundai Motor India IPO: 10 Key Points Investors Should Know

Kronox Lab Sciences IPO: 10 Key Points Investors Should Know

Transport Corporation Of India Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Aarti Drugs Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Nucleus Software Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Indian Toners and Developers Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Weizmann Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Patel Integrated Logistics Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Ducon Infratechnologies Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Dhyaani Tradeventtures Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Modern Engineering Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Best Dividend Stocks in India

Philips India Unlisted Share Price

Oravel Stays Unlisted Share Price

Upstox Vs Groww: Stock Broker Comparison

Cochin International Airport Unlisted Share Price

• Advisory Review

Research and Ranking Review: Charges, Services, Trial, Complaints

Last updated on December 27, 2023

Established in the year 2016, Research & Ranking is a SEBI registered equity advisory which aims to aid equity investors in wealth building through long-term investing. The firm offers a robust technology-enabled platform backed by detailed research that helps in wealth creation by generating personalized portfolios as per investors financial goals. We dived into the firm’s service offerings and here is Research and Ranking Review.

Research & Ranking is a part of Equentis Group, established in the year 2009. Over the years, the advisory built a team of  professionals across Mumbai, Thane, Delhi and Bengaluru, while the company’s registered office is based in Mumbai.

Over the next 2-3 years, Research & Ranking plans to get listed as well as go overseas and serve international investors by mirroring their technology-based investment advisory model’s success in developed markets including the UK, the USA and Middle-east.

Research and Ranking (Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited) Details

Research and Ranking Review: Services

Research and Ranking services primarily focus on long-term investing and has built its investment schemes accordingly.

5 in 5 Wealth Creation Strategy: It is designed to help investors to invest in a personalized and competently diversified portfolio of 20-25 stocks with the potential to generate 4-5 times returns in 5-6 years.

MisPriced Opportunities (MPO): This service helps investors to profit from market fluctuations by investing in stocks trading below their underlying value, thereby having the potential to generate 25-50% returns in 6-12 months.

Research & Ranking service named Dhanwaan and EWA Exclusive are their two premium offering for HNI and Ultra-HNI clients who wish to create massive wealth by investing in high growth businesses with the potential to grow at a rapid rate with India’s growth trajectory, thus compounding investor wealth at a CAGR rate of 25-35%.

Dhanwaan – A Premium Non-Discretionary Portfolio Management Service: Invest in a highly personalized and concentrated portfolio of 20-25 stocks with the strong past track record of 4-5 times returns in 5-6 years.

Informed InvestoRR: It helps investors to by giving regular relevant information which thus impact your investment as an investor. Research and Ranking is collecting all the quality information on stocks and market and is providing it on a single platform.

Research and Ranking Charges

Research and Ranking charges for its services on yearly basis, with the plans for one and five years and the paying cycle being in every 6 months. Please note that GST charges of 18% are imposed separately in addition to the prices shown below:

As seen above, Research and Rankings charges goes from moderate to high. Customers can choose subscription plans according to their needs and service required, as the plans seem to cater to small as well as large & HNI investors.

Read also: Upcoming IPOs in 2024

Research and Ranking Complaints and Customer Service

Research and Ranking reviews have been quite positive according to their customers for the services they got, and its registered complaints on the site portal has been also very low. Most of the business websites have rated it with good ratings with moderate customer complaints. Research and Ranking customer service seem to be quite nice according to its long-term users.

Research and Ranking Review: Pros and Cons

• Good customer service
• Variety of services
• Long-term investments only
• No free trial

Explore more advisory reviews

Disclaimer  – The objective behind Research and Ranking   review is to offer an unbiased view of the company’s service offerings and cost of subscription services. This review of Research and Ranking service offerings is only for information purpose and is not a recommendation for investors

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• About IPO Central
• Advertise with Us
• Authors’ Corner
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Become a PRO really fast

Equentis - Research & Ranking 4+

Your wealth advisor, equentis wealth advisory services pvt ltd, designed for ipad.

• 2.9 • 44 Ratings

Screenshots

Description.

We have complete faith in the power of equities for creating wealth. History proves that those who identified the right opportunities were able to amass a lot of wealth in stock markets. We, at Research & Ranking, call it the 5 IN 5 Strategy aka Wealth Creation strategy. WHO IS IT FOR ? · Suitable for Investors with time horizon of 1-5+ years. · Investors who can have patience during Market Volatility. · Investors with Investible surplus of 2 lacs-25 lacs. Key Benifits · Portfolio Of 15-20 Multibagger Stocks which has the potential to grow as much as 4-5 times in 5 years. · Detailed Research Reports for every recommended stock. · Information on how much you may invest in an individual stock. · Upside Potential for every recommended stock. · Investment information on the Price Range in which recommended stock has to be purchased. · Quarterly Result Updates to track earnings growth and yearly upside for each stock. · Portfolio Fact Sheet to capture Yearly Upside for the portfolio and recommend changes in the portfolio. · Alerts Via SMS, Email Updates On Your Dashboard for news/events affecting the recommended companies. · Portfolio Tracker to manage your own equity investments. · Dedicated Support Via Live Chat, Phone and Emails from your dashboard.

Version 4.7.7

Bug fixes and code Enhancements

Ratings and Reviews

Ok terms of service but need to work on app.

The app need lot of improvement. Example informed investor does not work on ios which should not a impossible fix in this ers. But coming to service i have experienced their quality reasearch . In fact i started with R&R when market started to fall from peak. But for 90% of suggested stocks proved both fundamentally and technically strong. But over time i felt one need not pay such a high premium for a long term investment, for the tenure specified in recommendations mostly we will see profits even if we do a small research ourselves. Also there are many mediums to get details about any company.

Developer Response ,

Thank you for your feedback Siva. We’re glad you’ve found our stock recommendations strong. Your concerns about the subscription cost are noted, and we strive to provide value for the premium charged. If you need further assistance, please contact us at 022-61013800 or [email protected].

App getting crashed always

App is always getting crashed whenever clicked on quarterly reports option.

We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the app crashes when accessing the quarterly reports. Our technical team is actively working to resolve this issue. Please try reinstalling the app or checking for updates. If the problem persists, contact us at 022-61013800 or [email protected] for further assistance.

Poor returns and worse app

I am associated with them from last couple of years . Their services are below average ( Very poor) . They will sell their services like their is no one else in the market . They showcase on their website only that very few stocks which have done well and their so called mispriced opportunities are the worst performing. My humble request to anyone seeing this comment is just ask them what are their returns from last 5 years and compare them to any good mutual fund or small case . I request the guys who are running this company to please don’t sell these kind of low end services to retail investors. The only thing these guys are good at is marketing .

Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry to hear about your experience with our services. We strive to provide the best possible recommendations and support for our clients. We value your input and would like to address your concerns directly. Please contact us at 022-61013800 or [email protected] so we can better understand and resolve the issues you’ve encountered.

App Privacy

The developer, Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Pvt Ltd , indicated that the app’s privacy practices may include handling of data as described below. For more information, see the developer’s privacy policy .

Data Not Collected

The developer does not collect any data from this app.

Privacy practices may vary based on, for example, the features you use or your age. Learn More

Information

• Developer Website
• App Support
• Privacy Policy

More By This Developer

Informed InvestoRR

You Might Also Like

MarketsMojo: Stock Research

InvesTiger by Sharekhan

Univest - Stocks & Investment

StoxBox: StoxCalls Trading App

The Captable

Social Story

Enterprise Story

The Decrypting Story

Daily Newsletter

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Founder first

Announcement

Startup Sectors

Women in tech

Entertainment

Art & Culture

Travel & Leisure

Curtain Raiser

Wine and Food

Mumbai-based Research & Ranking aims to help investors create wealth rather than manage it

Tuesday March 14, 2017 , 6 min Read

It is estimated that only 2 percent of Indians invest in stocks, and  Ashish Kumar Chauhan, CEO of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) is quoted as saying  in a Quartz report that Indians have a love-hate relationship with the stock market. The average Indian investor often finds himself working on limited information and knowledge, having to rely on the advice of possibly equally ill-informed acquaintances or opaque institutions. Mumbai-based Research & Ranking aims to change this scenario by busting the myths about equity investing and providing investors with tech-enabled solutions.

Story so far

Research & Ranking is a SEBI-registered robo-advisory venture that advises retail investors on how to create and sustain wealth through long term investments into equity markets. The beta version of the platform was launched in January 2016, and the venture finally went public in October 2016.

Manish Goel, Director at Research & Ranking, says that he and his team decided to enter this space looking at the overall market size and common problems faced by equity investors, and also to bust myths and wrong perceptions around equity investment. He adds,

Equity as an asset class is not looked at the right way in India. Long term performance data, across several asset classes, has proven that equity beats all other asset classes in the long run. But people are generally not aware of how to go about investing.

Headquartered in Mumbai, Research & Ranking is a part of Equentis Group, which has two main companies – Equentis Capital, which was started in 2009, and Equentis Wealth Advisory Services, which was started in 2015. The venture currently has a team of 30, with core team consisting of Manish, Anju Prashar, Jeetendra Nair, Ritesh Jain, Gaurav Goel Pankaj Jain and Mayuri Yadav.

R&R took a few months after the beta launch to test its technology system and get the right team in place, and then in October 2016, started the sales process and onboarded clients. Says Manish,

We approached our clients personally to understand their feedback about our product and the work we are doing. The feedback we got was positive, and most of the clients appreciated our concept of C.E.R.T.A.I.N and our end-to-end wealth creation solution approach.

How Research & Ranking works

Research & Ranking has two main offerings-

• 5*5 Wealth creation strategy

R&R helps investors identify stocks of well-run and growing businesses and create a personalised portfolio that has the potential to grow up to four to fivefold or more in five years, based on the investor’s risk assessment. Manish noted that such companies typically exhibit the twin traits of –

a. Consistent above average growth rates, and

b. Are run by management of exceptional pedigree.

As a part of this strategy, R&R’s research team and algorithms monitor portfolios of different stocks regularly to book profits in existing opportunities and replace the underperformers with better opportunities. To churn out non-performers quickly R&R sends recommendation alerts to the customers through SMS and email and then updates their dashboard simultaneously.

The portfolio’s growth is tracked every quarter based on stock price and detailed quarterly results analyses. Based on the progress, portfolio rebalancing is advised, as required, to make sure that yearly growth is captured along with the long term growth in the businesses.

One may choose to stay invested for any period of one year and above, but the team encourages investors to subscribe to this strategy for the medium to long term, with the aim of wealth creation. Manish noted,

It is a general myth that equity investments can’t be done based on your personal goals, needs, and objectives. Investors usually think that for goal-based investments, fixed income options are the best way to go. Our strategy tracks business growth and has a fair idea of how much the portfolio can grow. Our singular focus is ‘Wealth Creation’, which we strongly differentiate from Wealth Management.

2. Customised research reports

R&R also offers investors access to customised reports about any company that they are interested in. Manish noted that, upon request, R&R does extensive market research for a few months and then presents a report that includes parameters like management pedigree, key financial parameters, business outlooks, and recommendations on whether to buy, sell, or hold a particular stock.

R&R offers these services at a half-yearly or annual subscription, and also has a more premium plan, if one doesn’t wish to subscribe.

Guiding principles of Warren Buffett and Paul Samuelson

Manish noted that their guiding principle is captured by Paul Samuelson – “Investing should be more like watching the paint dry or watching grass grow. If you want excitement, go to Las Vegas.”

He believes that value investment is the right way to create wealth, and that wealth creation beats wealth preservation. The key objective for wealth creation is to purchase sound businesses run by competent management at a price that represents a material discount to their long term intrinsic value. This then allows the business value to surface over time through “Investment Discipline” and the “Power of Compounding”. He added,

Our approach for finding out the value opportunities and staying invested in them for the long term, with a lot of patience, is broadly aligned with the philosophy of Warren Buffet and Benjamin Graham .

Sector overview and future plans

According to reports by KMPG , financial majors like Wells Fargo, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and Fidelity Investments have discussed or announced automated financial advisory services.

India, however, is estimated to has among the lowest mutual fund investment rates (7 percent), with mutual funds accounting for only 3.4 percent of total investments by individual investors (including HNIs and retail). So, during the initial stages, incumbents (or banks and larger financial institutions) will be the early adopters of robo-advisory solutions, before it hits the ancillary markets. AdviseSure, part-human, part-robot finance advisor, is a player in this space that offers counsel at Re 1 per day . Then there are players like Wixifi and TrakInvest that demystify stock trading. According to YourStory Research, there are close to 50 Indian early-stage startups flocking to the robo-advisory space.

Manish noted that Research and Ranking’s focus is on reaching the milestone of 20,000 customers in FY17-FY18. R&R also aims to come out with new tools and services, like a dashboard that compares one’s R&R portfolio to a mutual fund run-rate.

Website- Research & Ranking

• stock market
• Equentis Capital
• Warren Buffett
• wealth management
• robo-advisory
• Value investing
• Research and Ranking
• Wealth creation
• Equity investments
• Paul Samuelson
• Equentis Group
• robo-advisory solutions

MOST VIEWED STORIES

SketchBubble is every professional’s ally when it comes to corporate presentations

KarbonWise streamlines carbon footprint measurement and reporting for enterprises

Lifestyle brand Uni Seoul wants to unite the flair of South Korea with quality and functionality

EV batteries get a second life; Luxury chocolates for couples

Welcome to Equentis Research and Ranking.

We make equity investments easy for you 

Sign in to Your Customized Portfolio

Not an existing subscriber? Start Now!

OTP Verification

Did’t get OTP ? Resend OTP

Login with your Password

Login with Password

Forgot Password?

Login with OTP

Forgot Your Password

Back to login

Having trouble verifying your email id? Support

SEBI Registered Investment Adviser Details: Registered name: Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited , Type of registration: Non-Individual , Registration No.: INA000003874. , Validity: Dec 08, 2015 – Perpetual

Copyright © 2023 Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Account Blocked

Your account has been blocked due to excess invalid attempts. You have entered wrong password more than 4 times.

For further assistance please contact [email protected]

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Email Address. .

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Mobile Number & Email Address. -->

Reset Your Password

Your password must.

Be at least 8 characters Include an Uppercase letter Include a number or a special character Not start or end with a space

Confirm Password

Your password must be the same as the new password.

Home > Ecommerce and Online Business > Business and Finance Websites > Research And Ranking > Dont believe to research and ranking team

Research And Ranking

2 sep 2021 i subscribe there MPO plan they asked me they will give me atleast 25 to 35 percent gain but as they are cheater i am in big loss after investing of 8 companies they suggested 6 are in loss loss loss and it is painful to me so guys dont go for research and ranking they charge me for subscription and still i am facing loss of money. so please keep away from research and ranking

• Report this content as inappropriate on the site: If you find this review content irrelevant on our site, report this review!
• Very Useful

popular business and finance websites websites

70trades.com reviews , pearlvine.com reviews , richlivetrade.com reviews , neobux.com reviews , socialaddworld.us.com reviews , icicibank.com reviews , go4worldbusiness.com reviews , olymptrade.com reviews , policybazaar.com reviews , 10paisa.com reviews

list of all online shopping websites

most reviewed business and finance websites websites

richlivetrade.com reviews , orapolicy.com reviews , iciciprulife.com reviews , exportersindia.com reviews , policybazaar.com reviews , iforex.com reviews , indiainfoline.com reviews , policyx.com reviews , olymptrade.com reviews , pangaea668.com reviews

list of all websites and online stores

list of all Ecommerce and Online Business

scribendi.com reviews , valueresearchonline.com reviews , meraconsultant.com reviews , spicesms.com reviews , turbotax.com reviews , appollosindhoori.com reviews , icicicommunities.org reviews , webwayofindia.com reviews , alibaba.com reviews , sohonetindia.com reviews , icashline.com reviews , investopedia.com reviews , creax.com reviews , ryze.com reviews , themoneylist.org reviews , quest.net reviews , taxindiaonline.com reviews , advantage2you.com reviews , personalfn.com reviews , virtualbank.com reviews

• WRITE REVIEW

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

II Research subscribers enjoy more. You'll have access to the top-ranked or top-line results of our research and rankings, as well as a weekly round-up of insightful SEC filings from Stephen Taub.

Registration (free).

Register (free and quick) to log-in to access many more areas of the II Research website

• Restricted view of Survey Results pages
• Editorial articles (except premium journalism eg Stephen Taub)

Single User License

Unrestricted access to the core results of II Research's Survey Results pages plus subscriber-only editorial content

• Core research and ranking results in Survey Results
• Access to data archive
• Weekly round-up of SEC filings from Stephen Taub

Bespoke Data Product

Full, raw data sets for serious analysis. Access full survey data tailored to your business requirements

• Data Licence

Excel-formatted data export for use with your own reporting and analysis tools

Our in-depth perception analysis and strategic decision making platform. Learn more

Call us +1 888 997 1563

As an IIResearch subscriber, you have access to the top-ranked or top-line results of Institutional Investor's research and rankings, as well as premium journalism.

"II Research is a unique industry benchmark which is a critical tool for our business. With high investor participation, good quality data and a comprehensive results package, II Research is a tool we rely on 12 months a year."

Aurelie Moyse, Head of Research Client Strategy, BNP Paribas

"The feedback we receive from the I.I. poll is valuable to us as it represents the views of our institutional clients and crystalizes their assessment of our thought leadership as a firm overall and in individual sectors."

Nick Rosato, Head of North American Research, J.P. Morgan

"Achieving a ranking(s) in the Institutional Investor survey is a way of crystallizing the importance and relevance of aspects of our franchise to our clients."

David May, Global Head of Research, HSBC

"As a fundamental, research-driven investment organization, our deep sector expertise and long-standing engagement with management teams is pivotal to understanding the long-term strategy and goals of the companies we invest in.  

I am pleased to see so many corporate voters recognize our differentiated research and corporate access model through the all-america equities awards.” .

Eric Veiel, Head of Global Equity and Chief Investment Officer, T. Rowe Price

For any queries on subscriptions please contact

Customer Service +1 888 997 1563 or email: [email protected]

Dennys Gil | Head of Subscriptions | II Research

[email protected]

+1 212-224-3819

1270 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor New York, NY 10020

Subscription Service Statistics and Costs

Subscription service statistics and costs 2022.

From Netflix to Stitch Fix, subscription services have changed the way consumers get their entertainment, apparel, food, etc. Convenient payment options through recurring monthly charges are one of the driving factors that attract many consumers to use subscription services.

Oftentimes the monthly payments for these services fly under the radar, especially when consumers subscribe to more than one. We wanted to take a closer look at consumers’ relationships with these subscription services as well as their awareness of how much they pay for them. Our survey asked consumers across the country about their relationship with subscription services and the associated recurring monthly charges.

Subscription Service Costs: How Much are Consumers Really Spending?

In order to conduct our analysis, we first asked consumers to think generally about the number of subscription services they use and estimate how much they spend per month on them. Respondents were given 10 seconds to complete this question. Then, a while later, these same consumers were asked to individually break down their monthly payments for each subscription service across various categories such as streaming, apparel, cosmetics, food, and other categories. 

On average, $86 per month was the initial amount consumers estimated they spent on subscription services. 

But upon closer look at their itemized expenses, the average monthly spend for consumers was more than 2.5 times the amount they thought at $219 – a whopping $133 higher than their original estimate. Almost one-third (30%) of the people underestimated by $100 to $199 and nearly a quarter each underestimated by less than $25, $25-$99, and $200 or more. 

Subscription Payments

As we see, consumers not only lose track of how much they spend on monthly subscriptions, but they also lose track of how many services they subscribe to and use.

Overall, about three-quarters (74%) of consumers said it was easy to forget about their recurring monthly subscription service charges. Meanwhile, a significant minority (42%) admit that they’ve stopped using a subscription service(s) but forgot they were still paying for the service (with Gen Z being most likely to forget and Boomers least likely). It appears that it’s pretty easy to forget about payments considering that the majority (72%) said they set all their monthly subscription payments to auto-pay.

Keeping Track of Subscription Payments

With the increase in subscription services, several companies and banks are now offering subscription tracking programs. These apps and services allow consumers to get a snapshot of how many subscriptions they pay for and how much they’re being charged per month. Overall, one-in-ten consumers said they use these services, with Mint being the most popular. 

Sharing Subscription Services

Recently, streaming services such as Netflix announced a crackdown on password and account sharing across their platform. Overall, more than one-quarter (26%) said they share a streaming service account with someone without paying for it. And nearly one-in-five (18%) said they share an account and split the costs with someone else. 

When streaming services first became popular in the late 2000s, so did the concept of “cord-cutting,” or dropping cable TV, primarily to save money. But with more and more of these services to choose from, nearly half (47%) of consumers feel that streaming will become more expensive than paying for cable. More than one-in-ten (12%) feel that only some streaming services will become more expensive than cable.

Despite the rise in subscription services, some consumers said they are looking to cut back on subscriptions; in fact, one-third said they’ll be cutting back on subscriptions within the next six months. 

There’s no doubt that subscription services offer many conveniences to consumers, but as inflation continues to take hold and prices across the board are increasing, more and more consumers will undoubtedly begin to scrutinize where their money is going – including to these services. Many will be weighing the trade-off of the service with price as well as the number of subscriptions they have. And, given that almost one-quarter (22%) feel overwhelmed with the number of subscription services they currently have, companies can expect to see their subscriber bases start to decrease. It will be more important than ever for companies to reinforce the value propositions of their subscription services to combat potential cancellations. 

Methodology 

From April 22 to May 2, 2022, we surveyed 1,000 self-reporting consumers across the country to ask about their relationship with subscription services. Respondents were split evenly among Gen Z, Millennial, Gen X and Baby Boomer age ranges. The average age of respondents was 43. Gender split: 51% female; 49% male. Income: Under $20K: 13%; $20K – Under 40K: 20%; $40K – Under $60K: 18%; $60K – Under $80K: 15%; $80-100K: 13%; Over $100K: 21%.

Relationship status: single: 36%; married: 37%; in a relationship: 17%; divorced: 7%; separated: 1%; widowed: 2%. 

When using this data and research, please attribute by linking to this study and citing https://www.crresearch.com/  

explore featured Case studies

Segmenting dog owners by those seeking quality…, collaborative, iterative, immersive, and agile creative…, unveiling the needs and emotions of prospective online….

Hey, get our newsletter

Join 5,000+ market research professionals who “emerge smarter” with our insights, what’s new & coming up, beyond generations: leveraging gen + life for deeper consumer insights.

Are you relying solely on age-based generational insights to understand your consumers? If so, you’re seeing only half the picture. Watch our insightful webinar where C+R’s innovative Gen + Life approach will change the way you understand and engage with different consumer segments.

In this webinar, our Cohort Consultants illustrated how delving into the intricacies of life stages can enhance the effectiveness of your marketing, ensuring your strategies resonate on a deeper, more personal level with your consumers.

Now On-Demand

smartpulse: our neuroscience tool for assessing experiences

Shopper segmentation.

Discover how our Shopper Segmentation can help understand shoppers’ mindsets.

Search this site

Current market rates for scholarly publishing services

Alexander Grossmann Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Björn Brembs Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

publishing, journals, costs, prices, scholarly publishing, scholarly communication,publisher

Revised Amendments from Version 1

In this version, we have used the feedback from the reviewers to improve the description of our methods and different wordings throughout the text. Specifically, we have described the publishing process in more generic terms and described the similarities and differences between the different publishing scenarios in more detail. We also updated the spreadsheet containing our raw data to reflect these new wordings.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Pandelis Perakakis See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lisa Rose-Wiles

Introduction

The affordability problem of scholarly publishing, i.e., the supra-inflationary price increases with stagnating library budgets, has been a hot topic for more than three decades (see, e.g., 1 – 8 ). In recent years, perhaps precipitated by some so-called ‘gold’ open access (OA) journals requiring payments in the form of article-processing charges (APCs; fees for authors or their institutions upon acceptance for publishing an article and making it openly available), the average cost of an article has emerged as a useful measure with which to compare different business models (but see 9 for a critique). However, most authors refer to the prices charged by the publisher, not the actual cost to the publisher (e.g., 10 – 13 ). One consequence of this mis-attribution is a potential overestimation of the actual costs of scholarly publishing due to the inclusion of the business models and pricing strategies of publishers into the calculation. To close this gap, here we provide a bottom-up calculation of the cost of efforts and services which are required to achieve a certain service level in order to publish an academic journal article. These calculations are analogous to what a new publisher would have to calculate before entering the publishing market. We compare our cost calculations with the current pricing schemes of publishers.

In this article, we assume the role of a newcomer to the academic publishing market and list the various steps and procedures for a representative publishing workflow according to current industry standards. Each step incurs a cost which can be determined by analyzing the market rates for each service or procedure. These costs comprise the direct costs. We also add several indirect (or fixed) cost items which do not accrue on a per article basis. The final per-article costs are then specified as a range depending on the number of articles published and the service level desired. These ranges denote current market rates at which customers can obtain publishing services.

Methodology

To arrive at a meaningful figure denoting how much the publication of an article costs on average, it is necessary to arrive at the exact cost for each step in the processing workflow of a manuscript being submitted for publication. These direct or variable costs then have to be combined with the indirect or fixed costs of operating a publishing enterprise, such as staff costs, real estate, insurance and energy costs, etc. The former requires granular insight and expertise about the different service levels for the entire publishing workflow. The latter is commonly calculated as staff overhead. In this work, we have therefore calculated the cost for each step in the standard publication workflow under consideration of both fixed and variable costs. Both external and internal expenses have been taken into account as well as overhead costs to cover fixed non-direct company costs of the publishing venture.

Direct or variable costs

There are three main areas in which production steps have to be considered: content acquisition, content preparation (production) and content dissemination/archiving. Importantly, ‘content acquisition’ does not imply active acquisition of authors and/or manuscripts.

1. Content acquisition

a. Online submission system

b. Searching and assigning reviewers

c. Communication with reviewers

d. Communication with authors

e. Handling of re-submission process

f. Plagiarism check

g. Similarity Check (CrossRef)

h. DOI for article (CrossRef)

i. DOI for 2 or more reviews (CrossRef)

j. APC collection

2. Content preparation (production)

a. Manuscript tracking system

b. Production system check-in

c. Technical checking of manuscript

d. Copyediting

e. Typesetting

f. Formatting figures/graphs/tables

g. Altmetric badge

h. XML and metadata preparation

i. Handling author corrections

3. Content dissemination/archiving

a. Web OA platform and hosting

b. Long-term digital preservation (CLOCKSS/Portico, etc.)

c. Distribution to indexing services (Scopus, PMC, DOAJ, etc.)

Pricing figures have been deducted by openly available price lists of vendors, as for example for Scholastica, Akron Aps, CrossRef, CLOCKSS (see Table 1 , Table 2 ). In all other cases where pricing list or fees were not openly available on the web, prices were indicated after a direct request for proposal or communicated privately. For the latter we have checked with other partners to validate that information. Some service vendors have not split their services in a granular manner but offer a full service for more steps of the publishing workflow. In those cases, we have tried to split those costs or consider the full cost as part of one of the scenarios (see below) which cover the complete manuscript acquisition and article production process.

Table 1. Publishing services and their fees.

Table 2. Published itemized cost structures from publishers/service providers.

Expenses and fees for each individual service have been arrived at from two main sources. Some standard services have been taken from openly available price lists ( Table 1 ).

Second, we requested quotes from vendors without publicly available fees, or turned to other sources 14 . For services such as manuscript submission and peer review management systems we considered vendors such as Manuscript Central (Clarivate) and Editorial Manager (ARIES).

Other costs such as internal staff costs (including overhead, EU/US standard) were estimated taking into account not only current market costs we have requested ourselves, but also numbers from major publishing houses (MDPI, Wiley, Springer, DeGruyter, Frontiers, Ubiquity, SciELO, Open LIbrary of the Humanities). While some of these publishers have made their costs public ( Table 2 ), others have either provided their numbers under the condition of confidentiality or the numbers were gained from internal sources.

For certain tasks, for example copyediting or typesetting, there are hundreds of individual companies worldwide providing those services on a industry-standard level. In our quote requests, we have considered only those with which we have collaborated in real business life so far or from which we know the performance and service level in detail from co-operations over two decades. Having compared the pricing of those service providers with others, we found only a very small variation of cost for such tasks, which justifies our practical approach. It was never our ambition to perform an exhaustive but always incomplete market study of service providers worldwide, but an attempt to provide an authoritative documentation of approximate current publishing costs as a valuable information tool for decision-makers and other stakeholders in policy drafting, contract negotiations or public discourse.

Indirect or fixed costs

The calculation of per-article figures from costs that do not accrue on a per-article basis (e.g., salaries, annual fees, etc.) was based on the following assumptions: (i) The average STM article contains 12 printed pages 13 , with 1500 words on each page (i.e., 18,000 words total). (ii) We estimated an average STM article to contain 10 non-text items such as figures or tables. (iii) We also assumed an average rejection rate of 50% after conventional (pre-publication) peer-review with at least two reports and ten contact requests to secure one reviewer. (iv) We assume a desk-rejection rate of 10% after editorial review. (v) We also base our staff costs on the granular work load per article and not on full-time equivalents (FTE). These assumptions entail that all editorial duties (on average 7.5 person-hours per submitted manuscript) are handled by in-house staff and none by academic editors, while peer-review is still performed by volunteer academics. In this way, staff costs, including overhead expenses, are calculated on a per-article basis (i.e., per published article, not per submitted manuscript). Salary costs are based on industry standards in more economically developed countries for the different editorial tasks. Overhead expenses can vary significantly depending on the profit and loss structure of the publisher and include rent, repairs, depreciation, interest, insurance, travel expenditures, labor burden, telephone bills, supplies, taxes, accounting fees, etc. We have estimated an average 33% overhead on top of salary costs. The following publication tasks are commonly covered by annual (membership) fees plus an initial, one-time set-up or installment fee: Web OA platform and hosting, CLOCKSS/Portico, DOAJ, Altmetric Badge and Crossref. Because these costs accrue regardless of how many articles are published (i.e., fixed costs), we have calculated per-article costs for journals with different numbers of articles published per year. All of these assumptions have been made with the overarching goal to ensure upper-bound costs. For each of these cost items, there exist numerous ways in which their contributions to overall costs can be reduced. Thus, the figures we provide here describe an upper cost ceiling that many publishers will easily fall below.

While some general fixed costs are covered by salary overheads (see above), we deliberately chose to not include certain fixed costs: Cost of sales have not been considered because for open access journals no longer sales representatives are required which have to negotiate renewals of subscriptions with libraries on an annual basis. We also excluded management costs as these are highly variable and in large publishers with many journals (and hence articles), per article costs of management are often negligible. We realize that this may be different for publishers which publish low-volume journals but with nevertheless highly paid executives (see Discussion). Because making an article public (i.e., ‘publishing’) is distinct from locking it behind a paywall, we have also not calculated the often very significant paywall costs. While innovation (or acquisition of innovative technologies) as well as branding and advertising/marketing are crucial for a company to succeed and thrive in a market in the long term, we have also not included these costs as they are not directly related to publishing scholarly articles. Such costs would include conference attendance, advertisement in print, online, social media and search platforms, as well as search engine optimization (SEO). Similarly, government relations (lobbying) may be considered a necessary expense for any business, but as it does not directly relate to the process of publishing academic papers, we did not include these costs in our calculations either. However, we do discuss the probable extent to which these non-publication costs may affect pricing.

The motivation for the above assumptions was to combine a robust cost calculation (i.e., sourced from measurable time efforts and industry-standard salaries) with an upper bound cost calculation which would come to lie above most academic-run journals. However, the journal landscape is diverse and journals can be run on a shoestring budget, supported exclusively by volunteer labor and institutional resources, or by multi-billion dollar publicly traded corporations with professional in-house staff handling every individual step. In an attempt to reflect this heterogeneity, we divided our cost calculations into three broad categories, each with two sub-categories for a total of six scenarios ( Table 3 ).

Table 3. Publishing scenarios for which detailed cost calculations have been performed.

PPPR - post publication peer-review (i.e., no rejections after peer-review). OJS - Open Journal System

The first two scenarios A and B correspond to professionally run journals where salaried in-house staff handle each manuscript and only peer-reviewers provide volunteer labor. These correspond to traditional commercial journal publishing scenarios. Scenario A differs from Scenario B in that the individual production steps are not sourced from a variety of generic publishing service providers, each specializing in their particular publishing step, but from a full-service provider specialized in scholarly publishing, providing most of the publication services listed above, from a single source. In our example, we have chosen a service provider which is representative for this sector and with considerable name recognition, Scholastica, as such a specialized, full-service provider. Selecting a single, specialized provider is more convenient and requires less expertise than multiple generic providers, as a single contract replaces sourcing and contracting of multiple partners. However, such convenience commonly comes with an additional cost. Scenario A corresponds, e.g., to those society or university-run journals with salaried editors, while many corporate publishers run their journals according to Scenario B. The third scenario takes into account that many scholarly journals are operating with minimal budgets by not paying their editors at all, using institutional servers, for instance with the free, open source Open Journal System handling submission and peer-review, with little space for long-term preservation or indexing. Of course, their institution covers server costs for these journals, but with servers being shared and provided centrally already, per-article costs approach zero. This aspect is analogous to the salaries of the volunteer editors being paid for by their institutions, irrespective of how many hours of editorial work are being volunteered. At first approximation, Scenario A is likely to be the most expensive option, all else being equal, with Scenario B expected to come to lie between Scenario A and the least costly Scenario C.

We calculated an additional sub-category for each scenario to better cover the scholarly diversity. For Scenario A and B we also considered an additional scenario where costs would be reduced by post-publication peer-review as it is practiced by journals like, e.g., F1000Research. In these scenarios, submitted manuscripts are published immediately and peer-review then merely creates additional versions, such that there are no more rejections after editorial review. Journals in Scenario C are often operated by individuals whose primary specialization is not scholarly publishing. Therefore, a provider that bundles the different publishing steps may be more expensive but enticing due to the convenience it offers. Therefore, we also calculated the costs for articles in such scholar-led journals, but with Scholastica replacing the generic service providers.

All costs are calculated per published article, i.e., a journal that publishes 1,000 articles per year has received 2,000 articles if their rejection rate is 50%. Our costs are calculated for the 1,000 published articles, not for the 2,000 submissions the journal has received. For each of the six scenarios, we have also calculated the same costs, but assuming a 90% rejection rate (see raw data file). As fixed costs are distributed over all published articles, article volume per year is another factor we considered. Our calculations yielded a lower bound of 100 articles per year (see results), below which it becomes difficult to operate a journal with in-house staff. Beyond 1,000 articles per year, indirect costs per article shrink to a negligible fraction. We thus calculated per-article costs for each scenario for journals with 100 articles per year and for 1000 articles per year, for a grand total of 24 different cost estimates. The results for the 12 cases that represent the more common journals with an average rejection rate of 50% are depicted in Table 4 .

Table 4. Different scenarios of journal organization, ordered by total per article costs (in US$).

The scenarios are labeled with A, A2, B, B2, C, C2 (see Table 3 ). Values correspond to an average 50% rejection rate, 90% rejection rate calculations in the text.

Finally, we also considered a seventh scenario which we did not list with the other six: a decentralized, federated platform solution where all scholarly articles are published without being divided into journals. Such a solution is not currently in widespread use, is not based on journals and thus remains, so far, largely hypothetical. While, e.g., Open Research Central may someday evolve into such a “Global Open Archive” as these solutions were called in 2010 15 , at the present time this is still a hypothetical scenario, despite repeated calls for such a platform since then 16 – 20 . With such a modern, decentralized, federated platform providing publishing functionalities without journals (see, e.g., 21 for details), some of the publishing steps listed above become obsolete, while others remain relevant. Steps that may become obsolete include DOIs, long-term archiving such as CLOCKSS or Portico, indices such as Scopus. Relevant steps remaining are typesetting/copyediting, XML preparation, format conversion, plagiarism checks.

An earlier version of this article, with more price information and discussion can be found on PeerJ 22 .

All the data we have based our calculations on are available at Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.8118197.v2 ).

One of the first findings of our calculations is that in order to employ at least one 50% FTE of an in-house editor, a journal has to publish approx. 100 articles per year or more. Hence, in the following, we will base our figures on journals publishing at least 100 articles per year (corresponding to 50% FTE) or 1,000 articles (corresponding to 5 FTEs), to show the spread of fixed and indirect costs over the number of articles published.

Our calculation of per-article publishing costs in a conventional pre-publication peer-review (50% rejection rate) scenario where all editorial duties are performed by in-house staff (Scenario B) ranges from US$643.61 for a journal that publishes 100 articles per year down to US$565.15 for such a journal that publishes 1,000 articles (or more, as the indirect costs become increasingly negligible around this value). These values consist of US$266.53 direct publishing costs (i.e., Similarity Check, DOI for an article, DOIs for two or more reviews, copyediting, typesetting, formatting figures/graphs/tables, Altmetric badge, indexing, XML and metadata preparation), US$ 289.91 for editorial staff and US$8.72 to US$87.18 for 1,000 to 100 articles, respectively, in indirect costs (i.e., Web OA platform and hosting, digital preservation, memberships).

These numbers were calculated using generic, full-service providers (based in India), where applicable. There are open access service providers that provide packaged deals for the same services as these generic service providers. We have calculated the same steps using a well-known provider in this area, representative for this class of service providers, Scholastica (Scenario A). Not unexpectedly, these figures are slightly higher: US$ 374.08 for direct publishing costs and US$5.92 to US$59.18 for 1,000 to 100 articles, respectively, for indirect costs (editorial staff costs remain the same).

While these costs have been calculated for a generic journal with 50% rejection rate, per-article costs will increase with increased rejection rates and decrease with less rejections as in, e.g., a post-publication peer-review (PPPR) model. In a journal that uses generic service providers and publishes all submitted manuscripts as PDF preprints with a DOI before performing otherwise identical peer-review as described above (i.e., PPPR with in-house editors and volunteer reviewers), per article editorial services drop from US$289.91 to US$140.69 (Scenario A2/B2), with all other costs remaining nearly identical. Conversely, prestigious journals with rejection rates of around 90% see their costs rise to US$1053.87 for 100 articles per year or US$770.53 for the larger journals with about 1,000 articles per year (generic service providers).

These numbers also show that for a conventional journal today, where academics perform their editorial duties on a volunteer basis (i.e., Scenario B, but no editorial costs as editor salaries are paid for by their academic institutions), direct publication costs come to lie at US$266.53 with generic service providers and total costs depend on the scale at which the journal operates. Small journals with 100 articles would face average per article total publication costs of US$353.71, while journals with 1,000 or more articles would only face costs of US$275.25 or less per published article. Even at the highest convenience for a small, volunteer-run journal, costs come to lie at US$454.63 where a full-service provider (Scholastica) handles all of the technical aspects of the work (Scenario C2).

The above calculations (summarized in Table 4 ) demonstrate economies of scale. The more articles are being published, the lower the costs for each article, approaching the fixed costs for each article.

Because of the economies of scale and recent calls for the replacement of journals with a modern publishing platform 15 – 20 , we have also calculated the cost of publishing the annual output of the STM community, approx. 3 million articles, on such a platform that facilitates PPPR organized by academic editors on a single, decentralized, federated platform running modern software solutions (a “Global Open Archive” 15 or “Next Generation Repository” 21 , such as, e.g., Open Research Central or equivalent). Such a platform would dispense with several production steps which are necessitated by the current balkanization of the literature in different journals published by different publishers, but keep others (see Methodology). In this scenario, the indirect and fixed costs per article approach zero due to the high number of published articles (but see Discussion), such that the only remaining costs would be the direct publishing costs of US$190.17 per published article.

Finally, taking a ballpark cost figure of US$600 for a scholarly article with full editorial services (i.e., scenario A/B) and comparing it to the low end of the average price estimate for a subscription article of about US$4,000 10 – 13 , 22 , 23 , it becomes clear that publication costs only cover 15% of the subscription price ( Figure 1 ). Assuming a conservative profit margin of 30% (i.e., US$1,200 per article) for one of the large publishers 24 – 27 , there remains a sizeable gap of about US$2,200 in non-publication costs, or 55% of the price of a scholarly subscription article ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Subscription price and cost items.

Assuming the commonly accepted US$4,000 price tag for a subscription article, published profit margins of 30% and our calculation of about US$600 in publication costs for a full-service subscription article (scenario A/B, see Table 4 ), there remain US$2,200 in non-publication costs per article.

Since the 1990s, it has been recognized that the prices of scholarly journals were escalating at unsustainable rates 3 . In the last 30 years, this “serials crisis” has never been coherently addressed, let alone solved. With this work, we aim to provide more financial evidence for future evidence-based policies addressing the affordability problem of scholarly communication 1 , 2 .

Prices and Costs

Not only current discussions are addressing the affordability problem in the unit of cost per article 10 – 13 , 23 , 28 – 30 and we follow this precedent. Drawing from publicly available price lists and industry-standard service costs, we find that publishing costs per article vary from US$194.89 to US$723.16, depending on the level of service and publishing volume ( Table 4 ). It is important to emphasize that these are conservative calculations, likely to constitute upper bounds, where innovation and changes in practice can be expected to decrease costs. For instance, our assumptions of an average article containing 12 printed pages (or 18,000 words) and 10 figures or tables is likely a substantial overestimate (especially given that pages with a figure or table must have much fewer than 1,500 words). Moreover, we used US/EU salary levels in our calculations. In countries with lower salaries, labor costs will be correspondingly lower.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the convenience of outsourcing the main publishing services to a specialized full-service provider comes with a small increase in cost (Scenario A vs. Scenario B), when compared to an itemized sourcing of publishing services. In our cost calculation, we have not factored in the management cost of sourcing the itemized services, as we have not included company management in our calculations. Any decision between these two options will thus have to be made after factoring in such costs as well.

Even in the rare, most expensive case, these costs compare very favorably both to the current subscription pricing of around US$4,000-5,000 10 – 13 , 22 , 23 and current APCs (US$1,400-2,200) 11 , 28 – 32 . See 22 for a discussion on subscription and APC pricing. Our highest value encompasses conventional, journal-based pre-publication peer-review with a generic 50% rejection rate at a small journal (~100 articles per year) where all management of peer-review is performed by in-house editorial staff with no volunteer academic editors. Our data suggest that increasing only the rejection rate, for example from 50% to 90%, leads to an increase in publication costs of around 30–40% (e.g., in scenario B from US$565.15 to US$770.53 for 1,000 article journals or from US$643.61 to US$1,053.87 for 100 article journals). Apparently, this is a consequence of the respective increase of direct personnel expenses for managing the peer review process and communicating with both reviewers and authors for classical pre-publication peer review. As currently most highly selective journals publish on the order of 800–900 research articles per year about US$1,000 per article can be seen as an upper bound of total publication costs at such journals.

On the other end of the spectrum are small journals that are run mainly on volunteer efforts. Even in cases where these journals use specialized full-service providers such as Scholastica, there are numerous ways to reduce per-article costs to below the US$100 mark. For instance, specializing in rapid dissemination of short articles reduces per-article costs at the Journal “Findings” to below US$100 33 , when the journal in all other aspects but article length follows our low-volume Scenario C2. Such numbers also highlight one of the problematic aspects of using per-article costs, averaged over a highly diverse publishing landscape.

Market rates for publishing services

The workflow we model consists of verifiable, modular components, available to any entity with the desire to enter the academic publishing world. Numerous publishers are already on the record to operate at similar costs to the ones we have calculated. These publishers include, but are not limited to SciELO, Pensoft/arpha, Open Library of the Humanities, Ubiquity, PeerJ or Scholastica. Our data confirm that at prices of around US$500 per article, these providers stand to arrive at around a 10% profit margin. Further corroborating these calculations, the 2018 STM report cites survey-based data that arrive at only slightly higher average costs than our calculation (US$420-650, excluding overhead, i.e., about US$560-870 with overhead) 13 . Our calculations also fall in the same range as other methodologies 34 .

Our calculations also show that with publishing volumes exceeding 1,000 articles per year, fixed costs shrink below 1% of the direct article costs and become negligible. This was expected and already concluded in a previous analysis 35 . These insights are important for designing a transition towards a scholarly publishing platform instead of journals 15 – 21 .

Due to the limited possibility in dividing labor contracts into arbitrarily small portions, we find that journals with volumes below approx. 100 articles per year would be best served financially if they operated on the concept of volunteer academic editors handling the peer-review, instead of in-house staff.

In conclusion, given the congruence of the available data and the publicly available prices for the services required, the market rate ranges for publication services we arrive at here do not appear controversial. Perhaps more controversial is the number and amount of non-publication costs a scholarly article, funded by the taxpayer, ought to accrue.

Non-publication costs

If the lowest publication costs for journals with volunteer editors constituted merely 5–10% of current subscription prices and publicly reported publisher profits only amount to an additional 30–40%, which non-publication costs are publishers currently facing and taxpayers paying for? While these costs are opaque and variable between publishers and, indeed, between journals, some estimates can be made from publicly available data. If one assumes revenue of about US$4,000 per subscription article (i.e., on the low end of the converging estimates), a conservative 30% profit margin (i.e., US$1,200 per article) for one of the large publishers 24 – 27 and generous publication costs of US$600 per article (scenario A/B; table 4 ), then there remains a sizeable gap of about US$2,200 in non-publication costs per article - more than the sum of publication costs and profits combined, or 55% of the subscription cost of a scholarly article ( Figure 1 ). While some of these costs may be considered necessary for any business, none of them are associated with publishing primary research articles (see Methods).

Running a business: Management. While our cost calculations include generic running costs such as rent, repairs, depreciation, interest, insurance, travel expenditures, labor burden, telephone bills, supplies, taxes, accounting fees, etc., we have explicitly omitted some indirect costs such as management cost and paywalls. For instance, according to their 2016 tax statement, the New England Journal of Medicine spends 4% of its publication revenue on their top ten management staff alone (which would translate to about US$160 per article if applied to our example above; Figure 1 ).

Preventing access: Paywalls. Subscription journals also face costs associated with paywalls. It’s difficult to estimate the cost of such technology for publishers, but the cost of a new paywall for the New York Times was reported to lie between US$25-50 million 36 , 37 . Alternatively, as the functional distinction between subscription articles and OA articles is precisely the missing paywall in OA articles, one could also assume that publishers arrive at their current APC pricing of around US$2,000 by subtracting paywall costs from their subscription price. This assumption would entail paywall costs of approx. US$2,000 per article (i.e., the difference between APC and subscription pricing).

On top of the technical costs of a paywall, one may also consider the legal fees for defending paywalls for this cost item. Publishers have a track record of litigation with regard to articles outside of their paywalls and regularly seek damages in court for actual or perceived threats to their subscription business model 38 – 44 . These costs accrue by seeking to enclose the scholarly literature within the paywalls of publishers via alternative routes in addition to the digital paywalls.

News, advertising, sales, marketing, public relations: branding. Another cost item is publishing non-research content. For instance, for 2017, PubMed lists a total of 1,595 articles published by the Lancet, while Clarivate Analytics only counts 302 articles for their Impact Factor. Assuming that only the latter articles amount to primary research publications, this journal’s revenue also pays for 1,293 non-research articles. Similar numbers also hold for other prestigious journals (e.g.: Nature: 837/2469, Science: 769/2629, New England Journal of Medicine: 327/1449; research/total), often with their own journalist and editorial staff commissioning articles and/or reporting themselves on research and policy news. However, the number of journals where this can constitute a significant fraction of their total costs is presumably small, likely restricted to the most prestigious journals.

Prestigious journals also often practice active author or materials acquisition, by traveling to conferences and laboratories, building networks in a strategy to entice the next exciting research finding to be published in their journals. Active author acquisition accrues costs both in terms of travel and time spent networking and communicating with authors that is not covered in our cost calculations (see Methods).

Sometimes, new journals also need to engage in such author acquisition practices, which, perhaps, can be best subsumed under general marketing or public relations costs required for building and maintaining a brand. These marketing costs also include, e.g., advertising in various venues targeting both authors and subscribers. For many publishers it is also common to promote their brand at conferences and institutions with, e.g., hosted speakers, travel grants or sponsored awards.

Because of the complex, time-consuming negotiations with libraries on ever tighter budgets due to the supra-inflationary subscription price increases, publishers also need to employ expert sales teams. The task of these sales teams is not only to find the most irresistible way to package and bundle subscription journals and/or databases, but also to device the most inexorable psychological strategy for their negotiations with librarians. These sales teams need to operate in close connections with the various advertising, marketing and public relations teams of the publisher to accomplish a coherent brand image. One may argue that in times of OA, these sales costs are not necessary expenses any more and more associated with paywall costs than with publication costs. On the other hand, in an OA world, one may argue that branding was never more important for author acquisition.

New technologies: innovation and acquisitions. Publishers also need to invest in innovation, in order to stay current with their technologies and functionalities. While scholarly publishers have been quick to transition from print to web-based technologies in the past, the digital functionalities of most of the scholarly literature today lag at least a decade behind current functionalities of other digital objects outside of the scholarly literature. The level of investment in innovation thus remains unclear and its effects questionable. Instead of investments into their own technological innovation, publishers today appear to acquire companies that have invented desired functionalities around the scholarly workflow, with the goal to provide services beyond publications 45 – 48 .

Government relations: Lobbying. Most international publishers, as any other corporation, also spend significant amounts of money on government relations (i.e., lobbying). Some of these corporations employ staff at the vice president level not only in the most important research nations, but also at the level of supra-national bodies such as the European Commission 49 . These staff, in turn, employ assistants and other members of their teams. Obviously, the task of these employees is to protect current revenue streams, e.g., subscription or APC income. For instance, one publisher, Elsevier, spends more than 400,000€ per year on lobbying at the level of the European Commission alone 50 . The consequences of such efforts have been observable, e.g., in the so-called “Finch Report” in the UK 51 , which surprised many commentators with its publisher-friendly recommendations ( 49 ,see, e.g., 52 ).

Which non-publication costs should remain bundled up with publishing? Regardless of all of these estimates necessarily remaining vague and imprecise, the fact remains that the scholarly community must eventually make a number of decisions, if it is to tackle the affordability problem. Which of the above non-publication costs should remain bundled up with the process of publishing scholarly research articles? Which of these costs are avoidable, which necessary and which even desirable? Are profit margins of 30–40% on taxpayer funds tolerable?

In fact, one may even ask which of the services we list as part of the scholarly publishing standard are actually necessary for scholarly publishing. After all, journals such as the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Discrete Analysis or the Journal of Open Source Software publish their articles with internal costs below US$10 53 , 54 . Likewise, the preprint archive arXiv publishes their articles at similar costs 55 . Overlay journals 56 – 58 take advantage of the preprint infrastructure to reduce costs much below the ones we have calculated here. A competitive market where service providers compete with their services and where price pressure forces market participants to consider internal production costs, unlike the current publisher monopolies, would facilitate such decision-making 22 , 59 .

Data availability

Underlying data.

Figshare: Journal_Production_Cost_010519.xlsx. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8118197.v2 60 .

This project contains the data used to calculate production costs for articles.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Michael Dowling, Jon Tennant, Isabell Welpe, Bernhard Mittermeier and Pete Binfield for critically reading and commenting on earlier versions of this document. We are also grateful to Abel Packer from SciELO and Brian Cody from Scholastica for privately sharing cost data from their organizations with us.

• 1.   Chan L: Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role of Open Access Institutional Repository. CJC. 2004; 29 (3). Publisher Full Text
• 2.   Harnad S, Brody T, Vallières F, et al. : The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature. 2004 [cited 2019 Apr 3]. Reference Source
• 3.   Douglas K: The Serials Crisis: Adjusting to Change. Ser Libr. 1990; 18 (1–2): 111–21. Publisher Full Text
• 4.   Fisher JH: Scholarly Publishing Re-invented: Real Costs and Real Freedoms. J Electron Publ. 2008 [cited 2019 Apr 6]; 11 (2). Publisher Full Text
• 5.   Houghton JW: Crisis and transition: the economics of scholarly communication. Learn Publ. 2001; 14 (3): 167–76. Publisher Full Text
• 6.   Tananbaum G: Of wolves and and boys: the scholarly communication crisis. Learn Publ. 2003; 16 (4): 285–9. Publisher Full Text
• 7.   Rose-Wiles LM: The High Cost of Science Journals: A Case Study and Discussion. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship. 2011; 23 (3): 219–41. Publisher Full Text
• 8.   Björk BC: Why Is Access to the Scholarly Journal Literature So Expensive? Libraries and the Academy. 2021; 21 (2): 177-92. Reference Source
• 9.   Eve MP: The Problems of Unit Costs Per Article. Martin Paul Eve: Blog. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 20]. Reference Source
• 10.   Van Noorden R: Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013; 495 (7442): 426–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
• 11.   Schimmer R, Geschuhn KK, Vogler A: Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. 2015 [cited 2018 Dec 14]. Publisher Full Text
• 12.   Odlyzko A: Open Access, library and publisher competition, and the evolution of general commerce. 2013 [cited 2018 Dec 14]. Reference Source
• 13.   Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M: 2018 STM Report. STM Assic.; 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 21]. Reference Source
• 14.   ECAT: Managing Peer Review Online. 2009 [cited 2019 Apr 14]. Reference Source
• 15.   Perakakis P, Taylor M, Mazza M, et al. : Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics. 2010; 85 (2): 553–9. Publisher Full Text
• 16.   Brembs B: Reliable novelty: New should not trump true. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17 (2): e3000117. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 17.   Stern BM, O’Shea EK: A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17 (2): e3000116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 18.   Grossmann A: Publishing in transition – do we still need scientific journals? ScienceOpen Res. 2015 [cited 2019 Apr 2]. Publisher Full Text
• 19.   Nosek BA, Bar-Anan Y: Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication. Psychol Inq. 2012; 23 (3): 217–43. Publisher Full Text
• 20.   Hartgerink C: Verified, Shared, Modular, and Provenance Based Research Communication with the Dat Protocol. Publications. 2019; 7 (2): 40. Publisher Full Text
• 21.   Rodrigues E, Bollini A, Cabezas A, et al. : Next generation repositories: Behaviours and technical recommendations of the CoAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group. Zenodo . 2017. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1215014
• 22.   Grossmann A, Brembs B: Assessing the size of the affordability problem in scholarly publishing. PeerJ Preprints. 2019; 7 : e27809v1. Publisher Full Text
• 23.   Odlyzko AM: Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1995; 42 (1): 71–122. Publisher Full Text
• 24.   McGuigan GS, Russel RD: The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. 2008 [cited 2019 May 14]; 9 (3). Reference Source
• 25.   Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P: The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (6): e0127502. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 26.   Beverungen A, Böhm S: The poverty of journal publishing. Organization. 2012; 19 (6): 929–38. Publisher Full Text
• 27.   Harvie D, Lightfoot G, Lilley S, et al. : What are we to do with feral publishers? Organization. 2012; 19 (6): 905–14. Publisher Full Text
• 28.   Jahn N, Tullney M: Data and code used from: A study of institutional spending on open access publication fees in Germany. 2016 [cited 2019 Apr 2]. Publisher Full Text
• 29.   Solomon D, Björk BC: Article processing charges for open access publication-the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ. 2016; 4 : e2264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 30.   Morrison HG: Global OA APCs (APC) 2010-2017: Major Trends. In: 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing . OpenEdition Press; 2018. Reference Source
• 31.   Shamash K: Article processing charges in 2016 | Jisc scholarly communications. 2017 [cited 2019 Apr 2]. Reference Source
• 32.   Crawford W: Gold Open Access 2013-2018: Articles in Journals (GOA4). Lulu; 2019. Reference Source
• 33.   Lehe L, Levinson D: The economics of findings . Findings. 2021. Publisher Full Text
• 34.   PEER Economics Report. Centro ASK, Università Bocconi; 2011 [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Reference Source
• 35.   Bogich TL, Ballesteros SP: On the Marginal Cost of Scholarly Communication. Research. 2016. Publisher Full Text
• 36.   Pulley B: New York Times Fixes Paywall to Balance Free and Paid. Bloomberg. 2011 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Reference Source
• 37.   Kramer SD: New York Times Paywall Cost: More Like $25 Million. 2011 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Reference Source
• 38.   Hansen D: Giving the Authors a Voice in Litigation? An ACS v. ResearchGate Update - Scholarly Communications @ Duke. Scholarly Communications @ Duke. 2019 [cited 2019 May 9]. Reference Source
• 39.   Chawla DS: Publishers take ResearchGate to court, alleging massive copyright infringement. Science. 2017. Reference Source
• 40.   Van Noorden R: Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate. Nature. 2017; 112 : 241. Publisher Full Text
• 41.   Association Of American Publishers: Statement on Sci-Hub Litigation. Statement on Sci-Hub Litigation. Association Of American Publishers; 2015 [cited 2019 May 9]. Reference Source
• 42.   Cox K: Eleventh Circuit Reverses and Remands Georgia State E-Reserves Case (Again) | ARL Policy Notes. 2018 [cited 2019 May 9]. Reference Source
• 43.   Flaherty C: An academic press sues a librarian, raising issues of academic freedom. 2013 [cited 2019 May 9]. Reference Source
• 44.   Schiermeier Q: US court grants Elsevier millions in damages from Sci-Hub. Nature. 2017; 6 : 541. Publisher Full Text
• 45.   Bosman J, Kramer B: Workflows. Innovations in Scholarly Communication. 2018 [cited 2019 May 7]. Reference Source
• 46.   Crunchbase: Website. 2019 [cited 2019 May 7]. Reference Source
• 47.   Posada A, Chen G: Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers. In: 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing . OpenEdition Press; 2018. Reference Source
• 48.   Campfens Y: Market research report: What has become of new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication? Open Science Framework. 2019. Publisher Full Text
• 49.   Tennant J: Democratising Knowledge: a report on the scholarly publisher, Elsevier. Education International; 2018. Reference Source
• 50.   LobbyFacts: RELX. Lobbyfacts. 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 5]. Reference Source
• 51.   Finch J: Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications: Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings [“The Finch Report”]. 2012 [cited 2019 May 7]. Reference Source
• 52.   Prior A: Key Issue - The “Finch Report”: the future is gold, but many challenges lie ahead. Insights: the UKSG journal. 2013; 26 (1): 77–81. Publisher Full Text
• 53.   Tennant J: Why the term “Article Processing Charge” (APC) is misleading - Green Tea and Velociraptors. Green Tea and Velociraptors. 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Reference Source
• 54.   Katz DS, Barba LA, Niemeyer KE, et al. : Cost models for running an online open journal | Journal of Open Source Software Blog. 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 16]. Reference Source
• 55.   Cornell University Library: arXiv Business Model White Paper | arXiv e-print repository. arXiv. 2010 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Reference Source
• 56.   Ball P: Publishing: The journal that publishes no papers. Nature. 2015; 526 (7571): 146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
• 57.   Van Noorden R: Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing. Nature. 2013. Reference Source
• 58.   Cassella M, Calvi L: New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA J. 2010; 36 (1): 7–15. Publisher Full Text
• 59.   Tennant J, Brembs B: RELX referral to EU competition authority. Zenodo . 2018. Reference Source
• 60.   Grossmann A, Brembs B: Journal_Production_Cost_010519.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8118197.v2

Comments on this article Comments (1)

• Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT
• Reader Comment 17 Dec 2021 pippa Smart , PSP Consulting, Oxford, UK 17 Dec 2021 Reader Comment A very interesting article. One cost area that is omitted, however (and which is - so far as I am aware - always omitted from such cost calculations) is editorial ... Continue reading A very interesting article. One cost area that is omitted, however (and which is - so far as I am aware - always omitted from such cost calculations) is editorial support costs. In addition to the cost of the editorial office (which is included) the traditional/expensive publishers provide editors (and parent societies) with support such as: (1) development advice (e.g. advice about article types, new review/article/technical/workflow etc. initiatives) which is provided by dedicated publishing staff (2) legal advice: contracts and other editorial/publishing agreements, help with legal issues (e.g. editors being threatened with legal action, or wishing to obtain advice about potential legal problems, e.g. article content) (3) ethical advice and support, along with ensuring editors, reviewers, authors are aware of ethical responsibilities and norms (4) editorial, author, and reviewer training, education and other related suport. Many of the newer companies don't provide this type of support since they have restricted expenses to the direct publishing costs as reported above. This is an area which is frequently ignored or unrecognised and the related costs are rarely reported. A very interesting article. One cost area that is omitted, however (and which is - so far as I am aware - always omitted from such cost calculations) is editorial support costs. In addition to the cost of the editorial office (which is included) the traditional/expensive publishers provide editors (and parent societies) with support such as: (1) development advice (e.g. advice about article types, new review/article/technical/workflow etc. initiatives) which is provided by dedicated publishing staff (2) legal advice: contracts and other editorial/publishing agreements, help with legal issues (e.g. editors being threatened with legal action, or wishing to obtain advice about potential legal problems, e.g. article content) (3) ethical advice and support, along with ensuring editors, reviewers, authors are aware of ethical responsibilities and norms (4) editorial, author, and reviewer training, education and other related suport. Many of the newer companies don't provide this type of support since they have restricted expenses to the direct publishing costs as reported above. This is an area which is frequently ignored or unrecognised and the related costs are rarely reported. Competing Interests: I run training courses for editors (many of whom rely on their publishers to pay attendance fees) Close Report a concern
• Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Open Peer Review

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Scholarly communication, Open peer review

• Respond or Comment
• COMMENT ON THIS REPORT

Reviewer Expertise: Library science, information literacy, citation analyses, circulation and journal/book pricing analyses.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

• Author Response ( F1000Research Advisory Board Member ) 01 Jul 2021 Björn Brembs , Institut für Zoologie - Neurogenetik, Univeristät Regensburg, Regensburg, 93053, Germany 01 Jul 2021 Author Response F1000Research Advisory Board Member Response to Reviewer #2: Lisa Rose-Wiles: I also concur with the previous reviewer that the “scenarios” and tables could be better explained and organized for greater clarity. We thank both ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #2: Lisa Rose-Wiles: I also concur with the previous reviewer that the “scenarios” and tables could be better explained and organized for greater clarity. We thank both reviewers for their suggestions and are confident to have now adequately addressed this very valid concern in the new, revised version of the manuscript. Also further indicators of variance would be helpful - for example, there are surely significant differences (especially in “fixed or indirect costs”) based on geographic location. I also find myself wondering which (if any) of the costs to publishers are tax deductible, which would effectively increase the profit margin. We have now further emphasized that our salary calculations are based on western (i.e., US/EU) industry standards and that countries with lower salary levels would hence face lower costs. This is to arrive at upper bound figures, describing the costliest way of publishing, from which one can always find ways to reduce costs. We have further emphasized this approach also at the very beginning of the Discussion section now. While the main focus of the manuscript is the cost of producing articles, to place this in broader perspective It would be helpful to clarify more explicitly that there are two major price components to journal articles: (1) Journal subscription costs, which are typically borne by libraries (although no doubt some researchers still subscribe to their favorite journals themselves), and (2) article-processing charges (APC's) which are in principle an open-access alternative to subscriptions, but in practice often simply shift the cost from an institution's library to its faculty, research office and/or some other institutionally-funded entity. Both contribute directly or indirectly to the high price of student tuition and the chronic under-funding of many academic libraries, but subscription prices seem to be the greater issue since the average “per article price” (see below) is considerably higher. For readers not necessarily familiar with the various journal pricing models, the authors might note that both journal prices and APC's vary enormously by discipline, especially STEM vs. humanities, and that the practice of “Big Deal” bundling (especially by large commercial publishers) can make it very difficult for librarians to disentangle the actual subscription cost per journal. It would be helpful to include some discussion and more explicit data on the widely varying range of APC's, which, in my experience, seem independent of actual subscription costs. I am more familiar with the pricing models for STEM journals (typically > US $2,500 APC regardless of journal subscription price), but it is my impression that when humanities journals do charge authors, the fee is much lower. This would be an interesting topic to explore in a follow-up article. Granted that STEM articles typically include multiple tables and figures that are costly to produce, but is the price differential really as substantial as the differences in subscription costs or APC's? We agree with all the arguments here. Therefore, we now more explicitly reference the longer, preprint version of our manuscript, where we not only discuss pricing strategies and business models, as suggested, but also policy options. However, in this more condensed version, we made a conscious effort to focus exclusively on the cost aspect, as we felt the original version was too long, unwieldy and difficult to read as it was covering too many topics at the same time. In the final paragraph of the results (p.6) and in Figure 1, the authors compare the article cost with “the average price estimate for a subscription article of about US$4,000”. Where did this figure come from and what is it based on? Is this an across the board “per library” average, in which case the wide variation in prices paid by different libraries (at least in the US) is surely another confounding factor. This explanation was indeed lost as we transitioned from our longer preprint version to this shorter one. We are very grateful for having this pointed out. We now reference the sources of these calculations. The most recent one is very simple: dividing the estimated US$10b in journal revenue by the number of published articles (2m): ~5k. As some other sources mention 4k, we went with the lower bound of these estimates in the literature. Again, there should be some discussion of the vast difference in pricing among disciplines, or if this is based on STEM journals as I suspect, that should be clarified. Also the average APC price should be included in the comparison; it is interesting that it appears to be considerably less than the quoted US$4,000 subscription “per article” cost. This brings up a further question for the future: in hybrid journals, does charging APC's result in lower subscription prices, or are APC's effectively layered on top of subscription prices? We now mention the APC price range of US$1,400-2,200 and the 8 references upon which we base this range. Another point that is only tangentially referenced (e.g. “volunteer academic editors”) is that many of the costs associated with publishing are actually borne by the institution and its academic faculty, who not only produce the scholarship but also review articles and often act as editors as well. This labor is typically unpaid. “Volunteer academic editors” in well-funded institutions may receive some form of course release, additional office space and/or clerical support, but again (see first paragraph) these costs are borne by the institution and to some degree passed on to its students; they are not borne by the publishers. Of course this point has been made many times before, but since the authors are discussing various costs involved in publication it is worth noting again. We now make it more explicit what is being paid in terms of salary and which work is being carried out by volunteers. We also explicitly mention the costs covered by institutions (e.g., salaries, servers) and relate them to per-article cost. As a final comment, it would be informative to have responses from publishers, especially small “non-profit” or “not-for-profit” publishers on this publication. We list numerous publishers which are already on the record for publishing in this cost range and cite journals that have much lower costs than our figures. In the acknowledgements, we mention that we have been made privy of internal cost structures to validate and test our figures. As we mention in the article, our numbers match those from other methodologies (e.g. surveys). The preprint version has been available since 2019 and has even received attention in trade organs such as the “Scholarly Kitchen”. In other words, publishers have already vetted our numbers and have had ample opportunity over a number of years to comment on our work and improve it by criticism. Given that our numbers match so well with the available evidence and that our article has received considerable attention from the industry since 2019, perhaps one may interpret the fact that the expensive legacy publishers so far have not publicly commented on these numbers, as evidence that there may not be much left to criticize? Of course, another reason may be that the more expensive publishers may hesitate to draw more attention to the fact that they are so much more expensive. In this case, we would appreciate any suggestions in how we may be able to force these publishers to acknowledge and comment on our calculations. F1000Research allows for comments on the manuscript and perhaps a drive to invite publishers of all ranges to contribute so such a comment may be instructive? Society publishers, so far, have refrained from public comments other than generally stating that they use publication income to finance society services. We allude to many such and related costs in the “non-publication costs” section of the manuscript. Response to Reviewer #2: Lisa Rose-Wiles: I also concur with the previous reviewer that the “scenarios” and tables could be better explained and organized for greater clarity. We thank both reviewers for their suggestions and are confident to have now adequately addressed this very valid concern in the new, revised version of the manuscript. Also further indicators of variance would be helpful - for example, there are surely significant differences (especially in “fixed or indirect costs”) based on geographic location. I also find myself wondering which (if any) of the costs to publishers are tax deductible, which would effectively increase the profit margin. We have now further emphasized that our salary calculations are based on western (i.e., US/EU) industry standards and that countries with lower salary levels would hence face lower costs. This is to arrive at upper bound figures, describing the costliest way of publishing, from which one can always find ways to reduce costs. We have further emphasized this approach also at the very beginning of the Discussion section now. While the main focus of the manuscript is the cost of producing articles, to place this in broader perspective It would be helpful to clarify more explicitly that there are two major price components to journal articles: (1) Journal subscription costs, which are typically borne by libraries (although no doubt some researchers still subscribe to their favorite journals themselves), and (2) article-processing charges (APC's) which are in principle an open-access alternative to subscriptions, but in practice often simply shift the cost from an institution's library to its faculty, research office and/or some other institutionally-funded entity. Both contribute directly or indirectly to the high price of student tuition and the chronic under-funding of many academic libraries, but subscription prices seem to be the greater issue since the average “per article price” (see below) is considerably higher. For readers not necessarily familiar with the various journal pricing models, the authors might note that both journal prices and APC's vary enormously by discipline, especially STEM vs. humanities, and that the practice of “Big Deal” bundling (especially by large commercial publishers) can make it very difficult for librarians to disentangle the actual subscription cost per journal. It would be helpful to include some discussion and more explicit data on the widely varying range of APC's, which, in my experience, seem independent of actual subscription costs. I am more familiar with the pricing models for STEM journals (typically > US $2,500 APC regardless of journal subscription price), but it is my impression that when humanities journals do charge authors, the fee is much lower. This would be an interesting topic to explore in a follow-up article. Granted that STEM articles typically include multiple tables and figures that are costly to produce, but is the price differential really as substantial as the differences in subscription costs or APC's? We agree with all the arguments here. Therefore, we now more explicitly reference the longer, preprint version of our manuscript, where we not only discuss pricing strategies and business models, as suggested, but also policy options. However, in this more condensed version, we made a conscious effort to focus exclusively on the cost aspect, as we felt the original version was too long, unwieldy and difficult to read as it was covering too many topics at the same time. In the final paragraph of the results (p.6) and in Figure 1, the authors compare the article cost with “the average price estimate for a subscription article of about US$4,000”. Where did this figure come from and what is it based on? Is this an across the board “per library” average, in which case the wide variation in prices paid by different libraries (at least in the US) is surely another confounding factor. This explanation was indeed lost as we transitioned from our longer preprint version to this shorter one. We are very grateful for having this pointed out. We now reference the sources of these calculations. The most recent one is very simple: dividing the estimated US$10b in journal revenue by the number of published articles (2m): ~5k. As some other sources mention 4k, we went with the lower bound of these estimates in the literature. Again, there should be some discussion of the vast difference in pricing among disciplines, or if this is based on STEM journals as I suspect, that should be clarified. Also the average APC price should be included in the comparison; it is interesting that it appears to be considerably less than the quoted US$4,000 subscription “per article” cost. This brings up a further question for the future: in hybrid journals, does charging APC's result in lower subscription prices, or are APC's effectively layered on top of subscription prices? We now mention the APC price range of US$1,400-2,200 and the 8 references upon which we base this range. Another point that is only tangentially referenced (e.g. “volunteer academic editors”) is that many of the costs associated with publishing are actually borne by the institution and its academic faculty, who not only produce the scholarship but also review articles and often act as editors as well. This labor is typically unpaid. “Volunteer academic editors” in well-funded institutions may receive some form of course release, additional office space and/or clerical support, but again (see first paragraph) these costs are borne by the institution and to some degree passed on to its students; they are not borne by the publishers. Of course this point has been made many times before, but since the authors are discussing various costs involved in publication it is worth noting again. We now make it more explicit what is being paid in terms of salary and which work is being carried out by volunteers. We also explicitly mention the costs covered by institutions (e.g., salaries, servers) and relate them to per-article cost. As a final comment, it would be informative to have responses from publishers, especially small “non-profit” or “not-for-profit” publishers on this publication. We list numerous publishers which are already on the record for publishing in this cost range and cite journals that have much lower costs than our figures. In the acknowledgements, we mention that we have been made privy of internal cost structures to validate and test our figures. As we mention in the article, our numbers match those from other methodologies (e.g. surveys). The preprint version has been available since 2019 and has even received attention in trade organs such as the “Scholarly Kitchen”. In other words, publishers have already vetted our numbers and have had ample opportunity over a number of years to comment on our work and improve it by criticism. Given that our numbers match so well with the available evidence and that our article has received considerable attention from the industry since 2019, perhaps one may interpret the fact that the expensive legacy publishers so far have not publicly commented on these numbers, as evidence that there may not be much left to criticize? Of course, another reason may be that the more expensive publishers may hesitate to draw more attention to the fact that they are so much more expensive. In this case, we would appreciate any suggestions in how we may be able to force these publishers to acknowledge and comment on our calculations. F1000Research allows for comments on the manuscript and perhaps a drive to invite publishers of all ranges to contribute so such a comment may be instructive? Society publishers, so far, have refrained from public comments other than generally stating that they use publication income to finance society services. We allude to many such and related costs in the “non-publication costs” section of the manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern
• Author Response ( F1000Research Advisory Board Member ) 01 Jul 2021 Björn Brembs , Institut für Zoologie - Neurogenetik, Univeristät Regensburg, Regensburg, 93053, Germany 01 Jul 2021 Author Response F1000Research Advisory Board Member Response to Reviewer #1: Pandelis Perakakis: The cost analysis provided in this report is based on a list of 24 services grouped in three distinct categories: content acquisition, preparation, and ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #1: Pandelis Perakakis: The cost analysis provided in this report is based on a list of 24 services grouped in three distinct categories: content acquisition, preparation, and dissemination. A first minor observation is that in the category of content acquisition, it would probably be more intuitive to list “online submission system” as the first item (before “searching and assigning reviewers”) to match the publication workflow. Thank you, corrected. A second and more important observation is that in this list, and throughout the manuscript, services are sometimes confounded with service providers. Since there are more than one providers for each of the services, I strongly recommend that the list only includes services, whereas in the manuscript different options for each service can be discussed. For example Crossref is not the only option for “DOI registration”, which I believe should be the title of this particular service. Similarly, the service provided by CLOCKSS/LOCKSS/Portico, could be called “long-term digital preservation”. Also, it is not clear what the service provided by OAPEN is, while “upload to Scopus…”, could be called “distribution to indexing services”. Should the authors decide to follow this recommendation I would advise to also modify the accompanying excel file accordingly. This was our oversight and it is an excellent suggestion. We are now following it 100%, also in the Excel spreadsheet. The “Direct or variable costs” subsection in the methods section would be easier to follow if it was structured differently, starting with the list of services and then explaining how pricing information was obtained. This is how it should be and we have no good explanation for why we did not write it that way. We have now re-ordered all components as suggested. Following the logic that the list of services is the nucleus of the cost analysis, and the report itself, I suggest that table 1 is modified so that the first column displays the services and the second column the providers. Corrected. Also, it is important that the terms in the services list are used consistently throughout the manuscript. For example, in table 1 we find a service termed “peer review” and another called “peer review management”. It is not clear how these services correspond to the original list. When a service provider offers more than one service in the list, I would recommend to include all of these services in the table. If it is considered convenient to create a new grouping (e.g., peer review management), it should be clear -in the table and in the manuscript- which services from the original list are included in this group (e.g., 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.). I see the point here, of course. We have been able to quickly fix the instances where it was just a matter of replacing a few words. However, it was not easy to address this very relevant point everywhere, as it is many times easier to refer to a series of steps with a shorthand rather than with a long list. Sometimes that shorthand can be a provider (e.g., Scholastica), sometimes it is a functionality such as, e.g., “OJS” for a system that manages submission, manuscript tracking and review management all at the same time. We have tried to rephrase as many of such instances as possible, but we are not sure if we were able to address this point in every single instance. The “scenarios” section should include a more thorough description of the different scenarios, as well as the motivation for selecting each of these scenarios as a separate use case. This description of what each scenario refers to is attempted in the “results” section but in a rather anarchic and hard to follow manner. In the “scenarios” section the authors vaguely mention that these scenarios “...correspond either to existing publishing options or to options that have been discussed in the literature”, but neither are these options clearly delimited nor specific references are provided. I therefore found it very hard by reading the manuscript to understand exactly which publication model, combination of services, and choice of providers each scenario refers to. This was made possible only by carefully analysing the formulas for the different calculations in the excel file. However, even after this more careful analysis, the motivation behind each scenario remained unclear. For example, it seems that the only difference between scenarios A and B in terms of content acquisition is using one service provider instead of another. In scenario A scholastica is used for online submission management (cell L18), while Akron is used in scenario B (cell J19). I recommend that the different scenarios are not defined based on the choice of specific providers but according to different, clearly explained publication models, characterised, for example, by use of existing publishing infrastructure (e.g., institutional or disciplinary repositories as in the case of existing overlay journals), variable rejection rates, number of published articles, review policies, voluntary or hired editorial work, etc. The available choice of providers for specific services (or groups of services) and their impact on the costs can be discussed in the manuscript and even presented as a separate table. However, I consider it important that the initial scenarios are reported without any reference to specific providers but rather using average (or low/high) estimates. Otherwise, in their present form, tables 3 and 4 are very hard to follow. In both tables publication choices (number of articles, review models, voluntary editors) are mixed with providers (scholastica, generic providers, etc.) without a clear description (in the table or the manuscript) of the different publication models, or the services offered by each provider. For example, from the excel file I deduced that scenarios A2, B2 and C do not include costs for online submission, but it is not clear from the discussion in the manuscript or from the brief labels in table 3, which exact models allow the omission of these costs and how. It is completely obvious how this section must be confusing for readers and, again, we do not have a good explanation for why we did not provide sufficient detail. Our lack of explanation could also be seen in some of Lisa Rose-Wiles’ comments. In attempting to follow these suggestions, we now have provided not only detailed explanations for each scenario in the text, but have also updated Table 3. In brief, scenario A and B differ in that B cases source multiple, generic publishing providers for the different steps (lower cost, more contracts, requires expertise), while A sources many steps from a single provider, specialized in scholarly publishing (more convenient, less expertise required, higher cost). Scenario C also covers all steps in principle, but does not count some costs such as editors (volunteers) or servers (institutional server) or a submission/tracking system (e.g., OJS). Post-publication peer-review decreases rejections and hence price (A2/B2). Scenario C2 replaces, e.g., servers and OJS with Scholastica. Insisting on the necessity to adequately describe the different publication scenarios, in the “scenarios” section the authors refer to a “decentralized/federated platform providing publishing functionalities”. However, again it is not clear what are the foundations of this model (e.g., a reference could be provided to the next generation repositories initiative promoted by COAR [1], or other similar proposals in the literature, such as in reference “20” in the manuscript), and whether this model is represented in one of the scenarios. Similarly, the authors briefly mention a PPPR model in the “results” section but there is no clear description of what exactly this model entails and which services from the original list allows to omit or circumvent. We now cite Perakakis et al. 2010 very prominently, as well as the COAR report, together with a brief explanation of the concept. Both are referenced with the name they gave these solutions, i.e., “global open archive” or ”next generation repository”, respectively. To summarise, I strongly recommend that the different publication scenarios refer to publication options (not choice of providers) and that they are concisely described in the corresponding section with references to the literature or to existing examples when possible. It should be clear which services from the list correspond to each scenario and how different scenarios allow the omission of certain services. The different options for service providers should be discussed separately. For example, it would be useful to report the impact on the publication costs of choosing scholastica or Akron as a provider for a specific list of services (drawn from the initial services list) in a given publication scenario. We are confident that the current version now addresses all the raised issues and that our choice of scenarios becomes clearer in the way we explain them now. As a minor comment, I suspect that J21 is missing from the formula used to calculate cell J26. I would recommend that the authors had another careful look at their formulas to avoid similar omissions or errors. We have triple-checked these cells in the spreadsheet and could not find any missing values. We have also checked all adjacent cells for possible errors and were not able to find any. We have gone over the entire spreadsheet both for the consistency of the calculations, the accuracy of the text descriptions and whether any of the costs needed to be updated due to change market rates. We have not been able to locate any problems. We suggest arranging an online call with video and screen sharing to identify and remove potential errors we may have missed or are unable to identify. Response to Reviewer #1: Pandelis Perakakis: The cost analysis provided in this report is based on a list of 24 services grouped in three distinct categories: content acquisition, preparation, and dissemination. A first minor observation is that in the category of content acquisition, it would probably be more intuitive to list “online submission system” as the first item (before “searching and assigning reviewers”) to match the publication workflow. Thank you, corrected. A second and more important observation is that in this list, and throughout the manuscript, services are sometimes confounded with service providers. Since there are more than one providers for each of the services, I strongly recommend that the list only includes services, whereas in the manuscript different options for each service can be discussed. For example Crossref is not the only option for “DOI registration”, which I believe should be the title of this particular service. Similarly, the service provided by CLOCKSS/LOCKSS/Portico, could be called “long-term digital preservation”. Also, it is not clear what the service provided by OAPEN is, while “upload to Scopus…”, could be called “distribution to indexing services”. Should the authors decide to follow this recommendation I would advise to also modify the accompanying excel file accordingly. This was our oversight and it is an excellent suggestion. We are now following it 100%, also in the Excel spreadsheet. The “Direct or variable costs” subsection in the methods section would be easier to follow if it was structured differently, starting with the list of services and then explaining how pricing information was obtained. This is how it should be and we have no good explanation for why we did not write it that way. We have now re-ordered all components as suggested. Following the logic that the list of services is the nucleus of the cost analysis, and the report itself, I suggest that table 1 is modified so that the first column displays the services and the second column the providers. Corrected. Also, it is important that the terms in the services list are used consistently throughout the manuscript. For example, in table 1 we find a service termed “peer review” and another called “peer review management”. It is not clear how these services correspond to the original list. When a service provider offers more than one service in the list, I would recommend to include all of these services in the table. If it is considered convenient to create a new grouping (e.g., peer review management), it should be clear -in the table and in the manuscript- which services from the original list are included in this group (e.g., 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.). I see the point here, of course. We have been able to quickly fix the instances where it was just a matter of replacing a few words. However, it was not easy to address this very relevant point everywhere, as it is many times easier to refer to a series of steps with a shorthand rather than with a long list. Sometimes that shorthand can be a provider (e.g., Scholastica), sometimes it is a functionality such as, e.g., “OJS” for a system that manages submission, manuscript tracking and review management all at the same time. We have tried to rephrase as many of such instances as possible, but we are not sure if we were able to address this point in every single instance. The “scenarios” section should include a more thorough description of the different scenarios, as well as the motivation for selecting each of these scenarios as a separate use case. This description of what each scenario refers to is attempted in the “results” section but in a rather anarchic and hard to follow manner. In the “scenarios” section the authors vaguely mention that these scenarios “...correspond either to existing publishing options or to options that have been discussed in the literature”, but neither are these options clearly delimited nor specific references are provided. I therefore found it very hard by reading the manuscript to understand exactly which publication model, combination of services, and choice of providers each scenario refers to. This was made possible only by carefully analysing the formulas for the different calculations in the excel file. However, even after this more careful analysis, the motivation behind each scenario remained unclear. For example, it seems that the only difference between scenarios A and B in terms of content acquisition is using one service provider instead of another. In scenario A scholastica is used for online submission management (cell L18), while Akron is used in scenario B (cell J19). I recommend that the different scenarios are not defined based on the choice of specific providers but according to different, clearly explained publication models, characterised, for example, by use of existing publishing infrastructure (e.g., institutional or disciplinary repositories as in the case of existing overlay journals), variable rejection rates, number of published articles, review policies, voluntary or hired editorial work, etc. The available choice of providers for specific services (or groups of services) and their impact on the costs can be discussed in the manuscript and even presented as a separate table. However, I consider it important that the initial scenarios are reported without any reference to specific providers but rather using average (or low/high) estimates. Otherwise, in their present form, tables 3 and 4 are very hard to follow. In both tables publication choices (number of articles, review models, voluntary editors) are mixed with providers (scholastica, generic providers, etc.) without a clear description (in the table or the manuscript) of the different publication models, or the services offered by each provider. For example, from the excel file I deduced that scenarios A2, B2 and C do not include costs for online submission, but it is not clear from the discussion in the manuscript or from the brief labels in table 3, which exact models allow the omission of these costs and how. It is completely obvious how this section must be confusing for readers and, again, we do not have a good explanation for why we did not provide sufficient detail. Our lack of explanation could also be seen in some of Lisa Rose-Wiles’ comments. In attempting to follow these suggestions, we now have provided not only detailed explanations for each scenario in the text, but have also updated Table 3. In brief, scenario A and B differ in that B cases source multiple, generic publishing providers for the different steps (lower cost, more contracts, requires expertise), while A sources many steps from a single provider, specialized in scholarly publishing (more convenient, less expertise required, higher cost). Scenario C also covers all steps in principle, but does not count some costs such as editors (volunteers) or servers (institutional server) or a submission/tracking system (e.g., OJS). Post-publication peer-review decreases rejections and hence price (A2/B2). Scenario C2 replaces, e.g., servers and OJS with Scholastica. Insisting on the necessity to adequately describe the different publication scenarios, in the “scenarios” section the authors refer to a “decentralized/federated platform providing publishing functionalities”. However, again it is not clear what are the foundations of this model (e.g., a reference could be provided to the next generation repositories initiative promoted by COAR [1], or other similar proposals in the literature, such as in reference “20” in the manuscript), and whether this model is represented in one of the scenarios. Similarly, the authors briefly mention a PPPR model in the “results” section but there is no clear description of what exactly this model entails and which services from the original list allows to omit or circumvent. We now cite Perakakis et al. 2010 very prominently, as well as the COAR report, together with a brief explanation of the concept. Both are referenced with the name they gave these solutions, i.e., “global open archive” or ”next generation repository”, respectively. To summarise, I strongly recommend that the different publication scenarios refer to publication options (not choice of providers) and that they are concisely described in the corresponding section with references to the literature or to existing examples when possible. It should be clear which services from the list correspond to each scenario and how different scenarios allow the omission of certain services. The different options for service providers should be discussed separately. For example, it would be useful to report the impact on the publication costs of choosing scholastica or Akron as a provider for a specific list of services (drawn from the initial services list) in a given publication scenario. We are confident that the current version now addresses all the raised issues and that our choice of scenarios becomes clearer in the way we explain them now. As a minor comment, I suspect that J21 is missing from the formula used to calculate cell J26. I would recommend that the authors had another careful look at their formulas to avoid similar omissions or errors. We have triple-checked these cells in the spreadsheet and could not find any missing values. We have also checked all adjacent cells for possible errors and were not able to find any. We have gone over the entire spreadsheet both for the consistency of the calculations, the accuracy of the text descriptions and whether any of the costs needed to be updated due to change market rates. We have not been able to locate any problems. We suggest arranging an online call with video and screen sharing to identify and remove potential errors we may have missed or are unable to identify. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern
• Reviewer Response 13 Jul 2021 Pandelis Perakakis , Open Scholar CIC, Birmingham, UK 13 Jul 2021 Reviewer Response I checked again and J21 is included in the calculation of J26. If it was my mistake in the original report, I apologise sincerely. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I checked again and J21 is included in the calculation of J26. If it was my mistake in the original report, I apologise sincerely. I checked again and J21 is included in the calculation of J26. If it was my mistake in the original report, I apologise sincerely. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Reviewer Reports

• Pandelis Perakakis , Open Scholar CIC, Birmingham, UK; Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
• Lisa Rose-Wiles , Seton Hall University, South Orange, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments (1)

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:

• Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
• You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
• You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
• You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
• You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
• You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
• You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.

Stay Updated

Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles

Register with F1000Research

Already registered? Sign in

Not now, thanks

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Maximize Your Research Budget with Subscriptions

Subscriptions give you access to multiple research reports as well as continuously updated data so you always have the latest information at your fingertips. Spend less time searching for information and more time using it to make decisions.

Subscribe now

Benefits of Subscriptions

Cost saving, tailored solution, saving you time and effort, instant access, continuous updates, get customized insights.

Subscriptions allow you to gain access to a selection of our extensive product range focused on your industry. Simply outline your area of interest and requirements and we will help you to build a subscription that best suits your needs. Cormac Brennan Marketing Manager

Let's get started

Please complete the form below and a member of our subscription team will contact you shortly.

The service I received was perfect. Support at Research And Markets work very efficiently as a team and my query was resolved quickly and satisfactorily. Justyna was very attentive and understanding and really helped me with the project that I am working on.

Trusted by the best

• Retail & Trade ›

Subscriptions & Direct Selling

Subscriptions & direct selling in the U.S. - statistics & facts

Direct sales in the u.s., subscription boxes and services, key insights.

Detailed statistics

Size of the global direct selling community 2013-2022, by region

Sales share of the U.S. direct selling industry 2022

Number of Amazon Prime subscribers in the U.S. 2016-2023

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Global sales of Amway from 2016 to 2023

Food & Nutrition

Global number of active subscribers of HelloFresh and Blue Apron 2016-2023

Size of the direct selling community in the United States from 2018 to 2022

Further recommended statistics

• Basic Statistic Share of the leading direct selling markets worldwide 2022
• Premium Statistic Revenue of the leading direct selling companies worldwide 2023
• Premium Statistic Size of the global direct selling community 2013-2022, by region
• Basic Statistic Retail sales of the global direct selling industry 2017-2022, by region
• Premium Statistic Leading reasons to use product/service subscriptions worldwide 2023
• Premium Statistic Year-on-year change in LTV of subscribers 2021-2022, by vertical
• Premium Statistic Lifetime value (LTV) of subscribers 2022, by vertical

Share of the leading direct selling markets worldwide 2022

Share of the leading direct selling markets worldwide as of 2022

Revenue of the leading direct selling companies worldwide 2023

Revenue of the leading direct selling companies worldwide in 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Number of independent representatives in the global direct selling community from 2013 to 2022, by region (in millions)

Retail sales of the global direct selling industry 2017-2022, by region

Retail sales of the global direct selling industry from 2017 to 2022, by region (in million U.S. dollars)

Leading reasons to use product/service subscriptions worldwide 2023

Leading reasons to use product/service subscriptions worldwide in 2023

Year-on-year change in LTV of subscribers 2021-2022, by vertical

Year-on-year change of annual customer lifetime value (LTV) of subscribers worldwide in 2022, compared to 2021, by vertical

Lifetime value (LTV) of subscribers 2022, by vertical

Average lifetime value (LTV) of subscribers worldwide in 2022, by vertical (in U.S. dollars)

Direct selling

• Premium Statistic Market value of direct selling companies in the U.S. 2016-2023
• Premium Statistic Retail sales of the direct selling industry in the United States from 2011 to 2022
• Premium Statistic Sales share of the U.S. direct selling industry 2022
• Premium Statistic Size of the direct selling community in the United States from 2018 to 2022
• Premium Statistic Number of direct sellers in the United States from 2018 to 2022, by contract type

Market value of direct selling companies in the U.S. 2016-2023

Direct sales market size in the United States from 2016 to 2023 (in million U.S. dollars)

Retail sales of the direct selling industry in the United States from 2011 to 2022

Direct selling retail sales in the United States from 2011 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Product category sales share of the direct selling industry in the United States in 2022

Number of people involved in direct selling in the United States from 2018 to 2022 (in millions)

Number of direct sellers in the United States from 2018 to 2022, by contract type

Number of full and part time direct sellers in the United States from 2018 to 2022 (in millions)

Major direct sellers

• Premium Statistic Revenue of the leading direct selling companies in the United States in 2023
• Premium Statistic Leading direct selling companies in the U.S. in 2021, by number of salespeople
• Premium Statistic Global sales of Amway from 2016 to 2023
• Basic Statistic Global net sales of Herbalife from 2013 to 2023
• Basic Statistic Global net sales of Herbalife from 2015 to 2023, by region
• Premium Statistic Global net sales of Tupperware Brands from 2013 to 2022
• Premium Statistic Global net sales of Tupperware Brands from 2013 to 2022, region
• Premium Statistic Global net sales of Usana Health Sciences, Inc. 2018-2023
• Basic Statistic Share of active Usana Health Sciences customers 2022, by region

Revenue of the leading direct selling companies in the United States in 2023

Global revenue of the leading direct sales companies in the United States in 2023 (in million U.S. dollars)

Leading direct selling companies in the U.S. in 2021, by number of salespeople

Number of salespeople of the leading direct sales companies in the United States in 2021 (in 1,000's)

Amway's sales revenue worldwide from 2016 to 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Global net sales of Herbalife from 2013 to 2023

Herbalife's net sales worldwide from 2013 to 2023 (in million U.S. dollars)

Global net sales of Herbalife from 2015 to 2023, by region

Herbalife's net sales worldwide from 2015 to 2023, by region (in million U.S. dollars)

Global net sales of Tupperware Brands from 2013 to 2022

Tupperware Brands Corporation's net sales worldwide from 2013 to 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Global net sales of Tupperware Brands from 2013 to 2022, region

Tupperware Brands Corporation's net sales worldwide from 2013 to 2022, by region (in million U.S. dollars)

Global net sales of Usana Health Sciences, Inc. 2018-2023

Global net sales of Usana Health Sciences, Inc. from 2018 to 2023 (in million U.S. dollars)

Share of active Usana Health Sciences customers 2022, by region

Distribution of USANA's active customers as of December 2022, by geographic region

Popular subscription services

• Premium Statistic Number of Amazon Prime subscribers in the U.S. 2016-2023
• Premium Statistic Share of Amazon Prime subscribers by income in the U.S. 2022
• Premium Statistic Retail memberships owned by Amazon Prime shoppers in the U.S. 2023
• Premium Statistic Global number of active subscribers of HelloFresh and Blue Apron 2016-2023
• Premium Statistic Blue Apron's revenue 2014-2022
• Premium Statistic Revenue of HelloFresh 2016-2023, by region
• Premium Statistic Share of Walmart+ subscribers in the U.S. 2022
• Premium Statistic Share of Walmart+ subscribers by income in the U.S. 2022

Number of Amazon Prime members in the United States from 1st quarter 2016 to 1st quarter 2023 (in millions)

Share of Amazon Prime subscribers by income in the U.S. 2022

Share of Amazon Prime subscribers in the United States in October 2022, by income level

Retail memberships owned by Amazon Prime shoppers in the U.S. 2023

Retail memberships owned by Amazon Prime shoppers in the U.S. in 2023

Number of active customers of HelloFresh and Blue Apron from 2016 to 2023 (in millions)

Blue Apron's revenue 2014-2022

Net revenue of Blue Apron from 2014 to 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Revenue of HelloFresh 2016-2023, by region

Revenue of HelloFresh from 2016 to 2023, by region (in million euros)

Share of Walmart+ subscribers in the U.S. 2022

Share of Walmart+ subscribers in the United States in October 2022, by age group

Share of Walmart+ subscribers by income in the U.S. 2022

Share of Walmart+ subscribers in the United States in October 2022, by income level

Consumer interest in subscriptions

• Premium Statistic U.S. consumers with at least one retail product subscription in 2023, by generation
• Premium Statistic Top features driving retail subscription sign-ups in the U.S. 2023
• Premium Statistic Reasons for retail subscription cancellations in the U.S. 2023
• Premium Statistic Mother's Day: consumers interest in gifting a subscription box U.S. 2023, by age
• Premium Statistic Subscription box gift for Mother's Day U.S. by region 2022
• Premium Statistic Subscription box gift for Father's Day U.S. by age 2022

U.S. consumers with at least one retail product subscription in 2023, by generation

Share of consumers with at least one retail product subscription in the United States as of April 2023, by generational cohort

Top features driving retail subscription sign-ups in the U.S. 2023

Leading features that drive subscription retail sign-ups by consumers in the United States as of April 2023

Reasons for retail subscription cancellations in the U.S. 2023

Leading reasons consumers cancel retail product subscriptions in the United States as of April 2023

Mother's Day: consumers interest in gifting a subscription box U.S. 2023, by age

Consumers interested in gifting a subscription box for Mother's Day in the United States in 2023, by age group

Subscription box gift for Mother's Day U.S. by region 2022

Consumers interested in gifting a subscription box for Mother's Day in the United States in 2022, by region

Subscription box gift for Father's Day U.S. by age 2022

Consumers interested in gifting a subscription box for Father's Day in the United States in 2022, by age group

Further reports

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

• Avon Products Inc.
• Direct selling market worldwide
• Gen Z and the beauty industry in the United States
• Coffee consumption trends in the United States

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

The Phoenix Mills Ltd. (PDF)

Polycab (PDF)

Union Bank (PDF)

Adani Ports and SEZ

Bajaj Finserv Ltd

Asian Paints

Bharti Airtel

Current IPOs

Upcoming IPOs

Listed IPOs

CAGR Calculator

SIP Calculator

Retirement Planning Calculator

Stay updated with all current affairs

App Downloads

Google Rating

Get 20-25 high growth stocks, catch all the latest news around you.

• August 30, 2024

Rekha Jhunjhunwala-Backed Bazaar Style Retail’s ₹834.68 Crore IPO: SWOT Analysis & Financial Breakdown

20 stocks to add to your watchlist today: 30th August 2024

• Investing , News
• August 29, 2024

CCI Greenlights Rs 70,350 Crore Reliance-Disney India Merger. Network18 Shares Soar by 13%

NBCC Share Price Jumps 18% on Potential Bonus Announcement: 4 Factors Driving the Surge

Must-Watch: 20 Stock Picks for Your Portfolio on August 29, 2024

• Bazaar Ke Sanskaar , News
• August 28, 2024

Should You Borrow Money From Friends To Invest in The Stock Market? Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 9

Janmashtami Festivities Fuel Economic Growth: Transactions Exceed ₹25,000 Cr

• Business , News

Zee Shares Skyrocket 15% After Amicable $10 Billion Sony Split – All You Need to Know

Stay updated with recent events with us, readers' favorites, read our latest blogs.

• August 25, 2023

14 Best Places To Live After Retirement In India

• December 13, 2023

Solar Stocks: Top 10 Solar Energy Stocks In India

• June 19, 2022

Stock Market Losses – 90% People Lose Money In Stocks

Tips, know-hows and more.

• Global , Investing

European Stock Market: Top Gainers & Losers 28th August ’24

• August 27, 2024

Bulk Deals vs. Block Deals In The Share Market To Know

• August 26, 2024

Premier Energies IPO: Key Details Ahead of the ₹2,830.40 Cr Issue Launch

• August 25, 2024

Global Stock Market Index: 25th August 2024 Weekly Recap

Stay on top of upcoming and current ipos.

• August 12, 2024

5 Upcoming IPOs this Week: ₹257.32 Crores, Key Details Inside.

• August 7, 2024

₹276.57 Cr. Unicommerce IPO: Stellar Debut, Fully Subscribed in 3 Hours

• August 6, 2024

FirstCry Launches ₹4,193 Cr IPO: Know The Subscription Status, GMP, & Objectives

• July 31, 2024

Ashapura Logistics IPO Oversubscribed 3.73x on Day 1: Know The GMP, Objectives, SWOT, & More

• June 10, 2024

The Le Travenues Technology IPO (Ixigo) – All You Need To Know

• May 27, 2024

Busy Week Ahead: 5 SME Upcoming IPOs and 2 Probable Listings To Watch For

Know how the indian economy is moving with our blogs.

• Economy , News

India’s ₹470 Crore Olympic Investment: Implications for Sports and Other Industries

• July 11, 2024

Is a Current Account Deficit Always a Worry for India?

Bharat Bond ETF vs. ELSS: Govt’s Capital Gains Tax Reform Aims to Bridge the 20% Gap

• June 6, 2024

8 Lessons To Learn From The Lok Sabha Elections 2024

Understanding Cashback Scams in India and How to Avoid Them

• May 31, 2024

S&P Global Sees ‘Positive’ Outlook for India: Forecasts 6.8% Growth in FY2025

• May 29, 2024

5 Reasons FAME 3’s ₹10,000 Crore Push for Electric Vehicles is a Win for Everyone

4 Factors Behind RBI’s Record Dividend and Its Impact on India’s Credit Rating

Catch all the latest movements happening in the market.

• August 23, 2024

Zomato-Paytm’s ₹2,048 crore Deal Boosts Stock Prices. Zomato Gains 2.71% & Paytm 5.47%

• August 9, 2024

Ola Electric Shares Jump 20% After Lukewarm Debut: 6 Possible Factors Driving the Rally

40% Rise in Yes Bank’s Stock: 6 Factors Fueling the 12-Month Growth

• August 8, 2024

NPCI Disburses ₹10,000 Cr Via UPI Credit: 4 Factors Driving the Growth

From ₹119 to ₹668 in 3 years. 8 Factors Driving Triveni Turbine Growth Story

• August 2, 2024

What Propelled Suzlon Energy to a 31% Surge in Nine Days? Analyzing the Key Drivers 

FMCG Market Targets $615.87 Bn by 2027: Businesses Boost Marketing Budgets by 30% to Overcome Slump  

Fundamentals, know company background, financials, and more.

• Fundamental Analysis of Stocks
• January 16, 2024

PNB Share Price – All You Need To Know

• December 27, 2023

RVNL Share Price: All You Need To Know

• November 18, 2023

Godrej Consumer Share Price: All You Need To Know

• November 9, 2023

Bank of Baroda Share Price: All You Need To Know

• October 30, 2023

Colgate Share Price: All You Need To Know

• October 19, 2023

Berger Paints Share Price: All You Need To Know

• October 10, 2023

Tata Elxsi Share Price: All You Need to Know

• October 7, 2023

DMart Share Price: All You Need To Know

Interesting stories on company evolution, zepto: a quick idea into a quick commerce giant worth $5 bn.

Raksha Bandhan: More Than A Thread. It’s A ₹12,000 Crore Industry!

From Failed Business to ₹4100 Crores: Vineeta Singh’s Sweet Entrepreneurial Journey

Bisleri: From A Hangover Cure to Hydration Hero Worth Over ₹7000 Crores

From Cooperative Dreams to Dairy Dominance: How Amul Changed India’s Dairy Industry into a $5 Billion Empire

BoAt: How Aman Gupta’s $500 Million Brand Revolutionized the Audio Game

Bazaar ke Sanskaar

Learn the do's & don'ts of share market investments.

• August 14, 2024

Financial Awareness Is Not For Me: Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 8

• Bazaar Ke Sanskaar

Should You Use A Credit Card Loan To Invest in The Market? Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode7

Should You Take Loans to Invest in the Market? Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 6

• July 24, 2024

Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 5: Stock Market Lows are for Entry

• July 17, 2024

Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 4: Not All Highs Are For Exit

• July 10, 2024

Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 3: Volatility is for Stocks Selling

• June 26, 2024

Bazaar Ke Sanskaar Episode 2: Lows are for averaging

Social media corner, stay updated with what’s trending on social media, brand films, watch to stay on top of india’s favorite investor community.

• +91 22 61013800/18
• [email protected]
• Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Limited, Marathon Futurex, A-603 6th Floor, Mafatlal Mills Compound, N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai 400013

Customer Service

• Privacy Policy
• Website Disclaimer
• Terms of Service
• Regulatory Disclosures

Our Products

• 5 in 5 Wealth Creation Strategy

Informed InvestoRR

Quick links, performance.

• Elite Club Conclave
• Media and PR

Video Gallery

Newsletters.

• Your Connections, Your Rewards

Equentis – Research and Ranking™

• SEBI Registered Investment Advisor Details:
• Registered name: Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Limited,
• Type of registration: Non-Individual
• Registration No.: INA000003874.
• Validity: Dec 08, 2015 - Perpetual

Principal Officer: Manish Goel, Email: [email protected].

Telephone No.: +91 22 61013800

Trademark ™ 2023 Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

• SEBI Office Details:
• SEBI Bhavan BKC
• Address: Plot No.C4-A, 'G' Block Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra
• Tel: +91-22-26449000 / 40459000 | Fax : +91-22-26449019-22 / 40459019-22
• Email: [email protected]
• Toll Free Investor Helpline: 1800 22 7575

Financial Calculators:

SIP Calculator ,  CAGR Calculator ,  Retirement Planning Calculator

Most Visited On Equentis – Research and Ranking

Nifty 50 Stocks :  Adani Ports and SEZ,  Asian Paints,  Bajaj Finserv Ltd,  Bharti Airtel,  ICICI Bank Share Price,  Tata Steel Ltd,  Mahindra & Mahindra,  Kotak Mahindra,  Reliance Industries Limited,  Titan Company,  Tata Motors,  UltraTech Cement,  Wipro,  Hero MotoCorp,  Shree Cement,  Nestle India,  Maruti Suzuki,  HCL Technologies,  ITC Limited,  Bharti Airtel

Trending Stocks :  Adani Green,  Tata Power,  Central Dep. Service,  Yes Bank,  IRCTC,  Adani Wilmar,  Tata Steel,  Visa steel,  Oil India,  BPCL,  Affle India,  Adani Power,  Happiest Minds Technologies,  Punjab & Sind National Bank,  Canara Bank,  CDSL,  Yes Bank,  Trident,  Urja Global,  SAIL

Market Tools

Decode yourself.

SEBI registered investment advisory services

Media, Award & Accolades

Stay updated with our winning journey

Watch our exclusively curated financial videos

Know the journey of stocks

Stay on top of the stock market

Stay in touch

5 in 5 Strategy

A portfolio of 20-25 potential high-return stocks

1 high-growth stock recommendation/ month, that is trading below its intrinsic value

A combined solution of 5-in-5 wealth creation strategy & mispriced opportunities

Manage your portfolio with dhanwaan

A step by step guide to sharpen your investing skills

EPW Coming soon

A concentrated portfolio of 12-18 high-growth & emerging theme stocks

Choose from our range of pricing packages