PLoS is a non-profit with publishing fees up to $3000, so I think their point is that high costs are not simply profit but that there is a large cost involved.
This is a misunderstanding: “non-profit” does not mean that an organisation can’t earn money. It means the company cannot be sold, and all profits have to be reinvested (rather than e.g. paid out to shareholders). And PLOS, like for-profit publishers, has in the past had very large profit margins (and has been criticised for this, e.g. [1]).
> It means the company cannot be sold, and all profits have to be reinvested
Right, so the incoming money is spent on the company itself - so should represent the long term running costs, surely.
> And PLOS, like for-profit publishers, has in the past had very large profit margins (and has been criticised for this, e.g. [1]).
I'm not sure I'd say those are extreme, $5M on $50M in revenue. Even if you removed that you would still have APCs of ~$1450-2700 which I don't think would change the original point.
> PLoS is a non-profit with publishing fees up to $3000, so I think their point is that high costs are not simply profit
“Non-profit” does not mean an organization does not earn profits. It means that it is not a vehicle for returning profits to particular stakeholders (owners, shareholders, LLC members, etc.)
And I'd add that it's also not particular proof of efficiency. Non-profits can be amazingly effective at using money to further their missions. They can also be enormous boondoggles.
[1]: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/09/29/plosone-hikes...