RE: Suber's refutation of universities paying more for OA

["Shaffer, Patricia" <Patricia.shaffer@INFORMS.ORG>]

Please understand that Heather's description of society funding applies 
to very few of us. For many (perhaps most) scientific societies, member 
dues do not begin to cover services to our members in support of their 
learned communities, and conferences break even or make a small profit 
in a good year. Even if we could afford to designate $10 of every 
member's dues for OA, it would not take us very far towards an OA model.

Events like 9/11, hurricanes, or the collapse of a segment of industry 
(such as telecommunications a few years ago) can all have devastating 
financial impacts on conferences that cannot be foreseen when the 
meetings are planned years in advance. Our academic members find their 
budgets squeezed just as librarians do, and we must take as much care 
pricing membership and meetings as we do publications.

Publications have been the dependable revenue source for reinvestment in 
technology that improves access and dissemination of the research. In 
addition, that revenue ensures continuation of the community activities 
for researchers that serve as a nursery for the ideas and connections 
that are fostered there, which grow and eventually provide the  articles 
published in our journals. The three legs of societies -- membership, 
meetings, and publications -- are all interdependent.

Our journals are not high priced, but without the revenue they do 
provide, I don't know how our scientific community would stay together 
in the same productive way. At least in my society's discipline, blogs 
are not yet an adequate replacement for membership and meetings, which 
still have value -- but I don't expect in my lifetime to see our 
membership and meetings revenue able to sustain our publications 
financially. I'd be thrilled if it were otherwise!

Patricia Shaffer
Director of Publications
Institute for Opertions Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)

________________________________

From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Heather Morrison
Sent: Thu 6/8/2006 8:31 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Suber's refutation of universities paying more for OA


Willliam Walters writes:

I'd question whether the no-fee journals, which operate largely
on a volunteer basis, can handle the volume of research output
that would be required in a truly Open Access environment.

Comments:

Good question, William!

No-fee journals operate on a variety of business models, from
volunteering to subsidies from various sources to advertising
revenues to combinations. In this post, I will focus on a
membership fee subsidy approach, for learned societies and
associations.

Many traditional journals produced by societies and associations
have always operated on a subsidy basis, with the subsidy funding
coming from such sources as membership fees and conferences.

A large and wealthy association could no doubt subsidize a very
substantial open access publishing program, if it chose to do so.

Picture, for example, how many journals and articles the largest
scientist organization in the world could publish OA, if they
chose.

According to their web site, the American Chemical Society is the
world's largest scientific society, with 158,000 members.  If $10
from every membership were devoted to OA publishing, this would
create an annual subsidy fund of over $1.5 million per year.

It is not at all out of the question for an organization of this
size to find this kind of money internally, without having to
raise membership fees a penny.

Considering how important the benefits of open access are,
perhaps the ACS should give this some thought.

If any of the organizations I belong to were to ask me if this
were a suitable use of my membership funding, I would not
hesitate for a second to say yes.

Heather G. Morrison
http://chemistswithoutborders.blogspot.com