[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

Jan, you seem to assume that critics of a producer-pays system are categorically opposed to the argument that publishing is part of the research process, and thus should be paid out of grants or the author's pocket. I am not arguing about how publishing "ought" to be funded. I am simply providing evidence that authors are generally opposed to having to pay much (if any) to publish. If citing a journal in Physics is not enough evidence, let me provide more:

Late last summer I contacted your company (Springer) to find out how many authors had opted to pay the $3,000 to make their article OA. Their response: 5

In 2004, I polled every Cornell researcher who had published in Nucleic Acids Research in the past five years whether they were willing to pay the full costs of publishing (it was $1,500 at that time, now $1,900), which would allow the library to get out of subsidizing authors through subscription costs. The alternative was for the library to pay a "membership" cost which lowered author-rates to $500. None of the authors said that they were willing to pay the full amount but were willing to pay the reduced amount. $500 is comparable to the page charges levied by good society journals in the life sciences.

Now, funding publishing on the money my institution saves through using low energy light bulbs is a fantastic idea, although we already have them. I once argued that the money saved when individuals cancelled their personal subscriptions should be sent to the library so that it can help pay our institutional subscription costs. What do you think the likelihood of this happening?

-Phil Davis


At 03:11 PM 4/26/2006, Jan Velterop wrote:
It is sort of flattering when someone takes the trouble to explain
what you assume. Though sometimes it's puzzling and it can be wrong.
So perhaps it helps if I interpret my assumptions myself.

I know (don't need to assume) that not all grant money coming into a
university stays in research. The percentages may be different in
different circumstances and countries, but at Cornell it is
apparently a whopping 58% that doesn't go to research. Phil argues
that that makes redistribution more difficult ("we don't just have
reallocation issues to deal with, we have a major shortfall"). I
argue that that it makes redistribution potentially easier. A system
in which 58% of a grant can be spent on other things than research
(including "mowing the law"  [sic] - copyright law?), is a system
that should be able to deal with 59% not being spent on research per
se. Especially since, after a transition period, the 1-2% of that
money which now goes into the library, could be put back into
research and compensate for the one percent research loss. That may
not even be necessary. Just using low-energy light bulbs throughout
the university or turning the heater down a notch in winter and the
air condition a degree up in summer may cover the shortfall. Better
for the environment anyway. But the more pertinent point is that
publishing *is* part of the infrastructure for research. If paying
for literature via the library can be an infrastructural provision,
then paying for the literature via article charges can be.

I do take the point that researchers may not happily part with money.
They are people, after all. They may not happily part with money for
lab glassware or chemicals, either. Or with money for mowing the
lawn. That's why we have infrastructural provisions. Publishing is
integral to research, and thus the cost of publishing is integral to
the cost of research. Those who don't see it that way should try not
publishing their research.

The fact that researchers didn't like page charges in Phys Rev D ten
years ago is neither here nor there. They didn't get open access for
it, they were as aware of the prices of journals as cats are aware of
the price of cat food (i.e. not, and they probably couldn't care
less), and it wasn't an infrastructural provision (which it should
have been, even then). They could rightfully see the latter as
unfair. After all, researchers don't have to pay for library
subscriptions, either.

Jan Velterop