RE: How to fund open access journals from available sources

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

David Goodman writes:

>1.  There is nothing necessary about the 70% figure. One strength of my
>proposal is that the amounts to be obtained from the authors/sponsors, on
>one part, and the libraries on the other, is variable. Probably some
>journals can be sustained on author contributions alone, as does the
>Journal of clinical Investigation according to their posting to the 
>Nature forum:  http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/14.html

David:  suggest a re-read of this article, in which the author concludes
that the JCI possibly cannot be sustained on author contributions alone,
though author payments are meaningful (cost per published article in
e-form for this journal is estimated at just under $5800):

John Hawley writes, at: 
<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/14.html>

	The fee that accrues on average to a JCI article at present 
	does not reach the amount noted in Figure. 2, [This is the where 
	the $5792 per article appears] but neither is the fee a small 
	fraction of the hypothetical. Publication fees, at least in the 
	case of the JCI, constitute a meaningful portion of the revenue 
	supporting the journal.

	[SNIP] The JCI has the benefit of history; it has the benefit of 
	being supported in many ways by authors and readers; it has the 
	benefit of having a blend of income sources. Increasingly, 
	however, it will not have the benefit of the level of 
	subscription income on which in part it currently relies. 
	This translates into further reliance on publication fees. It 
	seems fair to claim that it is unclear whether the system as a 
	whole can adapt to support the quantity and quality of 
	Open-Access publications envisioned by Open-Access advocates. And 
	I am among them. 

####end###