The untenable journal inflation situation is described on the Journal Cost Update web page.

There are a number of elements that influence (or hinder) open access distribution of the scientific research literature.

1. copyright (intellectual property) restrictions,
2. for-profit activities, and
3. the underlying publish-or-perish pressure.

The major concern of the community should be maintaining a revenue stream to support the peer review process.

Existing Price Models

1. 30 days of free access after publication,
2. free access after an initial embargo period,
3. author charges,
4. institutional subscriptions,
5. author charges in combination with institutional subsidies (for reduced author charges),
6. unlimited free access after publication (for non-subscribers),
7. government supported platforms with free access, and
8. other granting agencies providing support for open access.

While some of these systems rely on alternative non-subscription funding sources, many still subsidize their required infrastructure activities with traditional paper or ejournal subscriptions. Many publications now implement differential pricing subscription models - based upon either expected use (FTE or classification schemes) or actual use data. This subscription model may become problemmatic as journals continue to be "unbundled" due to the creation of new virtual journals and more effective document delivery alternatives for least used materials.

Open Access

Author Charges as a part of Open Access

There is a flaw in this model: revenue will drop significantly due to far fewer funding sources expected to cover the same production costs.

Author charges will certainly address the goal of increased readership, but it will create a major support issue as it will significantly reduce the number of supporters. Many (most) academic institutions will not publish articles in these journals, and they will drop their support as they will see no benefit from reduced author charges through an institutional subscription. Altruism will not be a strong basis for support as budgets continue to tighten due to commodity-like behavior for these freely provided raw research materials. In addition, most corporate and commercial organizations do not publish many articles in these journals, and they will also drop their support as they will see little if any benefit from reduced author charges through an institutional subscription. The remaining organizations that do publish in these journals will simply not be able to pay for the entire costs of publication -- especially if they remain as expensive as they are at the present. Almost all existing OA journal initiatives are not financially viable; only the most prestigous few can even break even at this time. Many OA journals have become subscription titles after an initial test period due to financial concerns. The idea of author charges does not appear to be a scalable method for providing the required and guaranteed revenue to support many journals.

In addition, research support comes through organizational channels, not directly from researchers, as there is an auditing trail that is supported by secure and demonstrable administration. Universities will simply not allow individual researchers to allocate funds due to legal liabilities and/or incredibly expensive and difficult overhead costs.

One final concern with author charges, based upon historical author actions, is that we will see the migration of manuscripts to the non-author-charging journals as researchers attempt to save laboratory funds. This means higher library subscription prices for these competing commercial journals -- which is a disaster in the long term for library budgets -- and indirectly for university allocations to labs.

The Alternative to Author Charges

In order to maximize the existing scholarly communication network, for published and non-published materials, there are a number of alternative approaches that might prove more stable than open access with author charges.

First, it would make sense to place future online journal materials within subject-based electronic Centers of Excellence platforms. These infrastructures are being developed through collaborations between libraries, scholars, academic institutions, government agencies, and grant agencies. They can be repositories for both published and non-published materials -- addressing many needs of a federated community including archiving.

Second, we can reduce the commercial skimming of profits, and redirect these funds as support for the existing society and not-for-profit publisher platforms and for the development of Centers of Excellence.

Third, we can use consortial buying clubs to exert influence on inflation rates and create more efficient payment methods. The SPARC initiative is an example of a powerful group of libraries supporting exploratory initiatives through guaranteed revenue.

Fourth, we can save significant funds if we reconsider the entire Promotion and Tenure process, with its publish-or-perish emphasis. The existing system encourages unlimited scholarly publication, and enormous numbers of editorial boards with little guarantee of quality control from many commercial operations. It is clear that at the present time there is a market for any author if they are willing to be published in a less significant journal (based upon impact factors and other variables).

Societies should serve as gatekeepers and provide oversight for scholarly communications networks. In addition to reducing the production cost of each article, we should be able to reduce the number of manuscripts going through the expensive review process. An immediate way to reduce the cost per article is to increase the effectiveness of the peer review system in terms of generating higher acceptance rates per manuscript reviewed. I have proposed a "post-peer-review" method of identifying the quality articles worthy of special handling. This system would provide a searchable and inexpensive repository for all quality information, and an overlay for peer reviewed materials and enhanced navigation services. This activity would also provide additional revenue from the sale of the resulting added value products.

These new repositories may drive traditional publishing out of business, if we mean static journals with simple subscriptions. New publishing will be virtual journals ... added-value filters presented as overlays of unbundled quality-reviewed materials. The smaller publishers are as well positioned to provide this service as the traditional publishers, perhaps better as they have a stronger relationship with the subject experts that are required to perform this service.

Summary

In order to ensure that major libraries continue to support the research publication process, the use of embargos (such as the IoP 30-day-only access or moving walls), may be the best compromise while the entire process remains a commercial entity. Less research-oriented libraries will be better served with a combination of document delivery for the infrequently-needed most current materials and open access for both immediately released and much older material. (Over time more material will become part of the free archive, and continuing subscriptions will cover the minimal additional access support costs.)

If we remove the commercial skim, the remaining funds could easily be used to support ever smaller embargo options.

What is required is a change in author and editor behaviors. Societies and administrators must encourage authors and editors to move toward long-term viable non-profit publishers, and must continue to support these publishers and their inititiatives. Libraries can work with societies and administrators to design better integrated systems for scalable long-term solutions.

For a related article by the Director see: Stern, David. "Open Access or Differential Pricing for Journals: The Road Best Traveled?" Online 29 (2): 30-35 (March/April 2005). http://www.infotoday.com/online/ mar05/stern.shtml

Back to Yale SciLib Possible Journal Cost Solutions and Enhancements

revised 5/10/06