http://www.library.yale.edu/~dstern/OApresentation.htm
<p>
OA: Who funds and who benefits?<br>
2005 AIP Assembly of Society Officers<br>
Friday, April 8,<br> 
(9:35-9:55am)
<p>
David Stern<br>
Director of Science Libraries and Information Services<br>
Kline Science Library<br>
219 Prospect Street<br>
P.O. Box 208111<br>
New Haven, CT  06520-8111<br>
<br>
phone: 203 432-3447<br>
fax: 203 432-3441<br>
email: <a href="mailto:david.e.stern@yale.edu">david.e.stern@yale.edu</a><p>
<hr>
<p>


<h3>NIH statement of society resistance.</h3>


<h2>Open Access: User benefits and concerns</h2>

Our definition of open access is: freely available immediate access to published peer reviewed 
research articles.
<p>
The Open Access journal initiative offers a new model for supporting peer review and 
distribution of scholarly 
information. The basic plan is to provide free access to published peer-reviewed research 
articles. This may be 
immediate access, or articles may be available only after an embargo period. The embargo is 
often placed by the 
publisher in order to guarantee subscriptions revenue to cover infrastructure costs (peer review 
coordination, 
editing, archiving, etc.)
<p>
An alternative to subscription revenue is the introduction of direct or indirect author page 
charges. A number 
of granting agencies are now supporting or encouraging the use of grant funds to provide 
immediate Open Access 
articles. This author or institutional article fee model is being explored and it is too soon to 
determine if 
such a pricing model will be viable on a large scale. For libraries, a model in which annual fees 
are based 
upon unpredictable annual production is rather difficult to budget. 

<h3>OPEN ACCESS IS GOOD FOR READERS, BUT A CONCERN FOR 
INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT</h3>

Open Access proposes free access
for readers, subsidized by authors/creators OR OTHERS. 
<p>
There are options
beyond the most familiar "author page charges" for generating such
revenue: 
<ul>
<li>institutional support, 
<li>government funding, 
<li>foundation support, and
<li>other interested agencies.
</ul>

<p>

<h3>IF REDUCED SUPPORTERS = UNTENABLE FEES?</h3>

When compared to traditional
subscriptions, all of these approaches significantly reduce the number of
organizations providing support for immediate journal production and archival
support.&nbsp; The large-scale adoption of this OA approach will create a gap
between required revenues and realistic revenue streams, which would endanger
the infrastructure needed to continue support for the existing scholarly peer
review and information distribution network.
<p>



<h3>REAL COSTS</h3>
There are real costs for scholarly information network infrastructures: 
<p>
<ul>
<li>peer review,
<li>platform support: 
<ul>
<li>maintenance
<li>R&D for navigation, and
<li>archiving/migration.
</ul>
and <p>
<li>paper distribution (never really gone; first copy costs) 
</ul>

<h3>WHO PAYS?</h3>

Who will subsidize these basic costs? <p>

authors/creators/institutional fees, <br>
readers/users (subsets or differential pricing), <br>
government sources (long-term reliability?), <br>
vested interest parties (foundations, societies, corporate readers)? 
<br>
<A HREF="http://www.library.yale.edu/science/oanews.html">Selected 
announcements/news</A>

<h3>IMPLICATIONS OF SMALLER NUMBER OF PAYERS</h3>

The smaller the base, the higher the fee ... <br>
and the less pressure to develop new tools or reduce costs. 
<p>
This equals less development and more danger (cost). 
<p>

<h3>IMPLICATIONS OF ARCHIVAL FEES  (if separate from original fees)</h3>

Question of perpetual archival access: 
<p>
Open access for all without restrictions: 
<ul>
<li>supported through OA from original birth (APS)
<br>
OR
<br>
<li>annual fees to support platform (Highwire annual subscription subsidies)
<ul>
<li>is this a good long-term strategy, given the unbundling of journals?
</ul>
</ul>
<p> 
vs. 
<p>
Archive subscription fees -- PROLA/JSTOR fees: ILL questions for non-members? 
<p>
Costs/Access: IoP annual or one-time, Elsevier ond-time, ACS all the time (rolling + annual)
<p>
<p>
Technology/Efficiencies/enhanced options:
<ul> 
<li>historians require different search options/metadata
<li>normalization of metadata IF across disciplines (taxonomies) 
<li>multi-media solution platforms: LOCKSS and DMCA restrictions on sharing technologies,
<li>local workstation clients?, 
<li>simple capture vs enhanced navigation (e.g. citation tracking) 
           ??? differential pricing by desired options?, 
<li>raw data migration and manipulation vs static emulation
</ul>

<p>

<h3>THE HAVES AND THE ALTRUISTIC HOPES</h3>

There are advantages to open access
for the general population; however, there are economic and practical forces
that would mean the majority of readers who materially benefit from this
material (corporate readers) would not subsidize the network, as they are not
the primary creators. 
<p>
<b>AGAIN, the Implication:</b> 
The smaller the revenue base, the higher the fee to each source ... and the
less desire/ability to support the development of new/enhanced tools, or to
pressure vendors for reduced costs. The long-term impact is less
development and higher cost. 
<p>

<h3>LEGAL ISSUES MEAN HIGHER COSTS AND UNNECESSARY 
REDUNDANCY</h3>

Economies of scale would move us
toward regional/discipline platforms, but the DMCA laws force the creation of individual
ownership archiving repositories (and therefore the redundant LOCKSS approach).
<p>

<h3>ADDITIONAL 'SUUPLEMENTAL' COSTS</h3>

There are now additional
subscription costs beyond peer review cost-recovery; both commercial skimming
and alternative uses for subscription revenues (i.e. society initiatives -
subsidize dues and conference costs,&nbsp; lobbying, continuing education,
R&D). This <b>hidden support</b> situation is sustained due to
publish-or-perish pressure that drives the system.
<p>

<h3>REDUCE THE LEGITIMATE COSTS OF PEER REVIEW</h3>

To reduce costs one must separate
peer review from commercial distribution.&nbsp; If this cannot be done due to
socio-economic factors, one can at least reduce the number of materials
immediately requiring expensive peer review. My post-publication peer
review overlay offers one such model.
<p>

<h3>QUALITY FOR THE DOLLARS? CUSTOMIZED OPTIONS FOR A FEE?</h3>

Questions with the current
approach: Are the additional costs for publisher added-value elements necessary
(look-and-feel, common branding, etc.)? Does technology make it easier
for non-traditional players to create alternative platforms (libraries and
universities)? Are there new options for for-fee services? Could these
enhancements be sold as differential pricing options for specific
populations? I offer alternative tiered subscription models for unbundled
materials. 
<p>

<h3>SELF-ARCHIVING AS A SOLUTION?</h3>

Self-archiving is not yet served by
comprehensive federated searching, and does not offer viable long-term
repositories.
<p>

<h3>OA FOR THE LARGER SET OF MATERIALS, SUPPORTED BY SAME 
PLATFORM REVENUE</h3>

Open Access should be the goal of larger integrated networks
of non-peer reviewed material on top of some sort of sponsored peer review
platform. This will require collaborations and behavior modifications
among scholars, libraries, societies, foundations, and vendors.
<p>
See: <p>
Stern, David. "Open Access or Differential Pricing for Journals: The Road Best
Traveled?" <u>Online</u> 29 (2): 30-35 (March/April 2005).
<A 
HREF="http://www.infotoday.com/online/mar05/stern.shtml">http://www.infotoday.com/online/
mar05/stern.shtml</A>
<p>

<A HREF="http://www.library.yale.edu/science/oa.html">Yale OA info site</A>
<p>


<a
href="http://www.library.yale.edu/scilib/modmodexplain.html">
eprint Moderator Model</A> (post-publication peer review model)
<p>

<A HREF="http://pantheon.yale.edu/~dstern/nasig.html">Tiered subscription model</A>

<p>
revised:  April 4, 2005