Re: SCOAP3

["Joe Serene" <serene@aps.org>]

We want to think Fred Friend, Travis Brooks, and Michael Fosmire 
(the latter two on PAMNET) for their thoughtful replies to our 
previous post, and to comment briefly on some of the issues that 
they have raised.

Fred states that "the risk from a SCOAP3 model is no greater and 
arguably less than under the present model."  While we appreciate 
his emphasis on the strengths of an international consortium, we 
think that he underestimates one crucial difference between 
subscription models and SCOAP3: in the former if one does not pay 
for a subscription one no longer has access to the journals, 
while in the latter non-payment has no immediate consequence. 
We think that lack of access to a journal as important as PRD 
provides a strong deterrent to non-payment, at least in 
institutions with major HEP research efforts.

Michael says "This is one reason APS has introduced tiered 
pricing...to slow the loss of subscriptions from smaller 
institutions...and I think by and large the research institutions 
accept and support the fact that they are already bearing the 
brunt of the costs of publication."  While Michael is correct 
that major research institutions deserve credit for accepting 
higher subscription prices in order to keep APS journals 
accessible to smaller institutions, he is not correct in 
suggesting that major research institutions currently bear the 
brunt of publication costs for APS journals.  In fact, APS tiered 
pricing has been remarkably successful in maintaining our small 
subscribers, with the result that almost half of the US 
subscription revenue for PRD comes from approximately 200 
subscriptions at APS Tier 1 and 2 institutions (the smallest and 
least research-intensive places).  This very surprising fact has 
major implications both for the start- up funding of SCOAP3 and 
for the challenge of recovering should SCOAP3 fail.

Finally, while we agree with Michael that our own small OA 
journals, and especially PRST- AB, provide an interesting test 
for the SCOAP3 model, we also want to emphasize the need for 
caution when interpreting such experiments, because of the 
uncertainties with allocating various overhead costs to a small 
journal operating under the umbrella of a much larger publishing 
enterprise.  Nevertheless, using our best judgment of these 
allocated costs, we find that despite steady and generous support 
from the accelerator community, PRST- AB has never run in the 
black.  There are many possible explanations for this result 
(e.g., perhaps we have not been sufficiently aggressive in 
seeking support), and one obviously should be careful about 
extrapolating results from small experiments.

Gene D. Sprouse
Editor-  in-  Chief, American Physical Society

Joseph W. Serene
Treasurer and Publisher, American Physical Society

>>> ""FrederickFriend"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk> 12/05/07 7:45 PM >>>

I applaud the willingness of APS to support the SCOAP3 initiative 
if the right conditions are met. This new model could provide 
better value for the academic community and a successful new 
business model for academic publishers. Gene Sprouse is right to 
point to the risk that "some libraries might divert their now 
voluntary contributions from SCOAP3 to more pressing needs", but 
that risk is already there and is already damaging the income of 
some learned societies. Some libraries are diverting funds from 
individual journal subscriptions in order to maintain "big deals" 
with the major commercial publishers.

The risk from a SCOAP3 model is no greater and arguably less than 
under the present model. The strength in the SCOAP3 model to 
counter the risk comes from the international nature of the 
alliance between funding organizations and libraries, a strength 
which will be greater than that in the present model, in which 
financial support for journals comes primarily from the library 
sector and on a national rather than an international basis.

Fred Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL