Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

If grants are skimmed to support infrastructure costs (like 
lights and mowing the lawn), then why couldn't authors' 
publication costs be paid out of these same infrastructure costs? 
This is a very good question, and it makes logical sense in the 
same way that the library is part of the university's 
infrastructure and uses some of its money to pay subscription 
costs.  To this, I see a real governance issue:

Imagine that each institution set up a special fund to pay these 
author costs.  In fact, SPARC has proposed the creation of such a 
fund, and has called it a "Provost's Fund".  Let's discuss who is 
going to manage this fund?

In our first scenario, lets leave it unmanaged.  The author 
simply submits his/her invoices and the fees are paid.  Without 
anyone managing this account, this would akin to putting a lot of 
cash out on a table and ringing a dinner bell.  In realistic 
terms, it would be akin to the librarian purchasing any and all 
requests for material that came to his inbox.  Talk about 
potential for abuse!

In our second scenario, lets put in a management board of faculty 
who will decide who gets their author charges funded.

SCENE 1:

A request from a molecular biologist comes in for $1,500 bill to 
pay for an article accepted in PLoS.  The life scientists on the 
board say "ok", the physicist on the board, says, "why don't you 
just post it on arXiv?"  The humanist says, "why does it cost so 
much to publish?"  After much debate, the board funds this 
article.

SCENE 2:

A request from a mathematician comes in with a $3,000 bill to pay 
for an article accepted in a Springer journal.  The life 
scientists says, "why so much money?  PLoS is only half as 
expensive!  Why not publish in a less-expensive journal?"  The 
physicists says, "why don't you just post it on the arXiv?"  The 
humanist says, "why does it cost so much to publish?"  The 
request is denied.  The mathematician appeals to his department, 
his dean and the provost.  Under pressure, the board reverses 
their decision and funds this article.

INTERMISSION

After six months of weekly meetings, the board discovers that 
they have run out of money.  They appeal the Provost for more 
cash.  More money is put in the Provost's Fund but with a stern 
warning that the board needs to be more stringent.  After all, 
the Provost is also being asked to fund a new nanotechology 
building and build a new sports stadium.

SCENE 3

A request comes from medical researcher that got an article 
accepted in PNAS.  She is really excited as she is an assistant 
professor and this article will make her career.  She is only 
asking for $1,000, and the life scientist thinks this is a great 
deal.  The humanist still doesn't understand why it costs so much 
to publish.  The physicist says, "why pay the money at all. 
PNAS is a hybrid subscription/OA journal.  In 6-months, this 
article will be free anyway!"  The board rejects this request, 
agreeing with the physicist, and two-months later, they are 
involved with a discrimination lawsuit.

While I have made this play a little more exciting than in real 
life (theatre is like that), setting up funds to pay author-side 
publishing costs runs straight into the horns of a dilemma.  Run 
without any governance, this fund iis open to exploitation and 
abuse.  Try to manage such a fund and you get involved in 
political and ideological disputes that, at heart, challenges 
academic freedom.

--Phil Davis

Jan, P.S. You'd be glad to hear that we cool our university campus
using a heat exchange system with the water in Cayuga Lake.
http://www.utilities.cornell.edu/utl_lscfte_howlscworks.html

At 04:32 PM 4/27/2006, Jan Velterop wrote:

> 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