RE: Economics of open access publishing

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

David Goodman wrote:

"As Fred characteristically knows, but Phil uncharacteristically 
forgets, it balances only over the whole system, not for any 
particular journal or library."

In my advanced stage of senility, I must have even forgotten that 
I've made this argument myself!  I have tried (and obviously 
failed) to eradicate our profession of a classic Fallacy of 
Division.  Just because a change of state may be in the best 
interests of the system, does not necessarily mean that it is in 
the best interests of the parts.  While a producer-pays model may 
be cheaper for all of science, it does not mean that it would be 
cheaper for each scientist or his/her institution.  We now have 
three detailed studies that support this position.

I have never argued against the potential benefits to readers in 
a producer-pays OA model, and no self-respecting librarian would 
ever take such a contrary position -- at least in public.  So why 
are we engaged in a prolonged debate over the findings of these 
three studies?

Sally Morris most patiently wrote: "Any change in pricing model 
tends to change the way in which different people pick up the 
tab.  The problem is that models which are 'fairer', whether 
subscription, OA or anything else - i.e. those which load more of 
the cost on those who receive the most benefit and/or are most 
able to pay - will be unpopular with exactly those people. 
Publishers find this when trying to move to fairer pricing models 
too!"

Or, as Levitt and Dubner began their popular economics 
bestseller, "Freakonomics", "if morality represents how we would 
like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually 
does work."


--Phil Davis