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

Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

Phil, it is good to hear, if I interpret your message correctly, that you're not categorically opposed to the argument that publishing is part of the research process, and thus should be paid out of grants. But then I don't quite understand your criticism of an authorside- paid system. I immediately accept that authors do not want to pay. That's why I argue that the authorside payment should be part of the infrastructural provision, just as the library is. You'd get exactly the same answer, i.e. 'no', if you were to ask them to pay for the subscriptions you have in the library, or even to pay by usage of the journals you subscribe to. Especially out of their own pocket. The library, however, is paid out of their grants (the 58% overhead), though they may not quite realise that. So, in my book, it would be strange to even suggest that authorside payments would have to come out of their personal funds. I think that's not what you're saying, but it's not entirely clear that if you don't, what the problem actually is (other than that what has to come out of overheads at Cornell may be higher than at other universities, who, as Heather Morrison pointed out, have also less grant money coming in and thus less to fund their overhead).

I'm very pleased to hear, too, that Cornell already uses low energy light bulbs. Since your remark about mowing lawns leads me to think that there might be appreciable expanses of grass at Cornell, could I also suggest ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) to heat/cool the buildings? Although, an advanced institution like yours probably has that, too, already.

Best wishes,

Jan Velterop

On 27 Apr 2006, at 14:30, Phil Davis wrote:

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