RE: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

["William Walters" <William.Walters@millersville.edu>]

I am grateful to Heather Morrison for taking the time to comment on my 
paper.

I should mention that I have no opinion whatsoever on whether it's fair 
for the largest research universities to pay a higher proportion of the 
total system-wide journal cost.  I also have no idea whether they're 
able to pay that cost.  I've tried to keep my paper as scrupulously 
objective as possible, and to avoid (in the paper) any conclusions not 
based on the evidence presented there.

My results show how costs would be distributed in an environment 
in which all journals are Open Access (freely available to 
everyone at the time of publication) and all journals charge 
publication fees rather than subscription fees.  I realize that 
those assumptions are perhaps unrealistic, and that several types 
of conventional, Open Access, and hybrid models are likely to 
coexist.  At the same time, however, I think it's valuable to 
show the cost implications of a "pure" Open Access environment.

The ALPSP study adopts a broad definition of Open Access 
journals, including (for example) those that provide free online 
access only after an embargo period.  It also includes many Open 
Access journals put out by publishers who also publish 
conventional journals -- publishers who have other sources of 
income that can be used to subsidize their Open Access projects.

Personally, I am skeptical of the idea that external funding 
agencies will be able or willing to subsidize Open Access 
journals on a large scale over an extended period of time. 
After all, those same funding agencies could just as easily 
subsidize libraries' conventional subscriptions right now.  I 
hope they will be able to support Open Access, but I'm not 
convinced that the necessary funds are available or that funding 
agencies will be willing to use them for that purpose.  (This is 
not something I address in my paper, so I have no evidence, 
either way.)

Heather Morrison mentions that my paper does not "take into 
account the possibility of open access business models that would 
level the playing field for the research producers."  I agree 
with her statement, since my study was never intended to 
investigate scenarios other than the two Open Access models that 
I describe in my paper.  I am likely to be skeptical, however, 
until I see more than a possibility that a particular business 
model will work.

Is Open Access publishing sustainable in the long run?  I worry 
that it's not, but I really don't know.  In my view, the question 
will be answered not by opinion, rhetoric, or even good 
reasoning, but by evidence.

William H. Walters, PhD
Assistant Professor of Librarianship
Collection Development Librarian
Helen A. Ganser Library
Millersville University
Millersville, PA 17551-0302
(717) 871-2063
___________________________

From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Heather Morrison
Sent: Wed 04/26/06 6:37 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

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/