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

Re: SCOAP3

When we met recently with a leader of the SCOAP3 initiative, he mentioned that one of the incentives for libraries to join is that the combined SCOAP3 group of subscribers will be large enough to negotiate with the publishers and to reduce the overall subscription fees we pay by as much as 2/3. This seemed hugely optimistic to me, as none of the publishers listed below, whatever their $/article, is making anywhere approaching 2/3 surplus. And, in fact, societies like the APS note that they have "no fat to trim."

Anyhow, this led to the SCOAP staff's statement that it should be possible for publishers to bring their costs down that much, through additional savings in their publication costs, and the SCOAP3 negotiations will push publishers to achieve these. In turn, we suggested that if such low cost, high quality could be achieved, it might be useful for SCOAP3/CERN to demonstrate that by starting a journal that proves the concept.

We've not heard back on this matter from the SCOAP3 group yet; would welcome any comments from readers of this list.

Ann Okerson/Yale Library


On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gene Sprouse wrote:

SCOAP3 is an initiative to convert all of the major high energyphysics (HEP)
journals to Open Access.  It would redirect libraryfunds for HEP journals to
a consortium that would then negotiatewith publishers in order to reach the
OA goals.  Although theSCOAP3 initiative sails under the banner of Open
Access, itbrings in its wake the prospect of reducing the aggregate cost
tolibraries of HEP journals. The costs of the 5 target journals arelisted
below:

JOURNAL       		$/article	$/citation	Publisher
Phys. Rev. D          	1.69		0.47         	APS
JHEP                 	1.79		0.43        	SISSA
Phys. Lett. B        	10.98		2.68         	Elsevier
Euro. Phys. Jour. C 	18.71        	7.06		Springer
Nucl. Phys. B       	32.33        	6.20		Elsevier

(Data from www.journalprices.com)

To raise $3.7M, the US part of the $14M of consortium funding,SCOAP3 is
negotiating with US institutions involved in HEPresearch. We estimate that
only about 1/3 of the US subscriptionrevenue for Physical Review D comes from
these institutions, soif only they are involved, each must be asked to triple
what itnow pays for PRD, presumably with offsetting savings from
otherjournals.  Of course SCOAP3 would also benefit
non-contributinginstitutions and the general public.

APS has a mandate to publish in all physics disciplines. As aservice to the
physics community we have kept our prices as lowas possible, to encourage
broad distribution of our content.However, if we are to continue to provide
quality peer review,distribution, and archiving of physics research, we must
recoverour costs. The current subscription-based funding model, thoughfar
from perfect, has provided adequate and stable funding, inharmony with the
arXiv and with our generous self-archivingprovisions.  An obvious concern is
that once the journals arefreely available, some libraries might divert their
now voluntarycontributions from SCOAP3 to other more pressing needs,
becausedoing so would bring no immediate consequences. We are
gravelyconcerned about the difficulty of reassembling our subscriptionmodel
were SCOAP3 to fail.

The funding and sustainability of the SCOAP3 model have yet to bedeveloped
and demonstrated. If they can be, then APS would bewilling to make PRD freely
available on our site.

Gene D. Sprouse
Editor-in-Chief, American Physical Society

Joseph W. Serene
Treasurer and Publisher, American Physical Society