Re: journal and publication costs, corrected figures

[espositoj@att.net]

If it were true that journals were indeed priced by the article, there
might be something to this analysis, but journals are not priced that way,
any more than music CDs are priced by the song.  Nor are they priced as a
strict function of cost.  They are (mostly) priced as a function of
several factors, including costs, risk, invested capital, and market
opportunity.  The biggest expense is in finding customers--call this
marketing--which is very difficult in a world that is awash in published
research.

Joe Esposito

> I gave some figures for this earlier, but these are considerably more
> reliable numbers, -- but see below for notes about limitations of the
> analysis.
> 
> Cost of serials to libraries:
> 
> Columbia: $7.14 million serials expenditure, 5838 articles, $1223 each
> Cornell: $6.20 million, 4804 articles, $1290 each
> Dartmouth, $3.89 million, 1034 articles, $3720 each
> Princeton, $5.45 million, 2692 articles, $2025 each
> Stanford, $11.26 million, 5838 articles, $ 1930 each
> Yale, $10 million, 4648 articles, $2169 each
> 
> Potential savings if articles cost $500:
> Columbia: $3.71 million
> Cornell, $3.36 million
> Dartmouth, $2.42 million
> Princeton, $3.31 million
> Stanford, $7.33 million
> Yale, $6.44 million
> 
> If articles cost $1500, Columbia & Cornell would pay more, the others
> less.
> 
> I did not adust for the cost of submission fes now being paid by the
> researchers. The cost given is just the cost to the library.
> 
> Number of articles: number of articles published from the university

> listed in 2001, according to ISI. Includes Science, social science, and
> humanities sections.  Does not include what isn't in themError here may be
> large in number of humanities articles etc, because of the spotty coverage
> of ISI, but this should be balanced by the low cost of journals in those
> fields.
> 
> Includes main university 
> #NAME?
> For Princeton, does include Plasma Physics Lab, for others, will people
> who know the local setup please verify. My guess at the likely error here
> from my not checking properly is plus or minus 25%, except for Princeton,
> which should be correct.
>  
> o The budgets are the 2000-2001 ARL numbers. (www.arl.org)
> o I did not check whether they include the med schools in all cases.
> o Whether they include electronic resources is unclear. 
> o Whether they include electronic resources other than journals is 
>   unclear. 
> o The ARL data starts with whatever the library reported for serials, 
>   using the 1995 standard, adjusted by me , based on what the library 

>   reported for"computer files" and for "other materials"
> o There was no category for electronic journals.
> 
> I make no claim to have done this adjustment right.  (The new standard
> will clarify this in the future.) My guess at the likely error here from
> my misinterpretation is plus or minus 25%. My guess at the possible error
> is of course larger.
> 
> Note:
> Division by field:
> Columbia:  5126 sci, 540 soc sci, 172 human.
> Cornell,   4253 sci, 417 soc sci, 134 human
> Dartmouth,  688 sci, 279 soc sci,  67 human
> Princeton, 2169 sci, 251 soc sci, 272 human
> Stanford,  5126 sci, 540 soc sci, 172 human
> Yale,      3857 sci, 522 soc sci, 269 human
> 
> These numbers depend a lot on the vagaries of ISI-- and of course is only
> journal articles.  There is some very small overlap in psychology between
> sci and soc sci, (not considered) otherwise almost none.  I did not
> attempt to obtain figures on the percent of serials cost in each subject.
> 
> If you use, please understand that any impression of precion is purely
> spurious.
> 
> Dr. David Goodman