Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

Some reflection on Bill Walters' Study as reported in Liblicense 
at: 
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0604/msg00106.html

First, a quote from Walters:  "the PLoS Open Access Model would 
bring dramatic cost reductions for all nine institutions in the 
sample".

One of the points which I see Walters and Phil Davis trying to 
make, it that an open access model paid for entirely by the 
researcher's library, would change the proportion of the total 
costs of scholarly communications.  That is, even if a PLoS-style 
model were completely affordable and cost-efficient for all 
libraries, the largest research producers would pay a 
disproportionate share of the cost.

There are two problems with this argument, in my view.

First, it seems that we are assuming that it would not be fair 
for universities with intensive research production to pay a 
higher share of the costs of scholarly communication.

Why shouldn't they pay more, though?  Can we not assume that the 
research intensive university receives a higher portion of 
research funding than the less-research-intensive university?

This strikes me as similar to arguments about FTE.  When 
purchasing electronic resources, pricing that is based on (or 
taking into account) FTE numbers is quite common.  This means 
larger institutions pay more.  Is this unfair?  The larger 
institutions do receive more funding from tuition, and likely 
other sources, right?

In other words, it would be fair for those who can afford to do 
the research to pay more of the costs of scholarly 
communications, just as it is perfectly fair for those with the 
largest user groups to pay more for electronic resources.

Second, useful as Walters' data and analysis are, there is still 
important data not yet taken into account.  As Peter Suber talks 
about this on Open Access News.  We haven't taken into account 
some fairly important variables - such as the fact uncovered in 
the ALPSP study, The Facts about Open Access, that less than half 
of open access journals have processing fees. Or that some 
funding agencies are providing funds for processing fees. Nor 
does this take into account the possibility of open access 
business models that would level the playing field for the 
research producers - such as providing provincial or state 
funding for production, much as many currently use such funding 
for group purchasing.

Add in a little efficiency, from the automated processing made 
possible by the current generation of software such as the open 
source Open Journal Systems, and a higher proportion of journals 
produced by faculty themselves, and it is not at all hard to see 
how we can have a scholarly communications system that is not 
only a very great deal more accessible - but also more 
affordable, too.

chrs,

Heather G. Morrison
E-LIS Editor, Canada http://eprints.rclis.org/