RE: Open access business models

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

In reply to questions from Dean Anderson
 
1. Is the author-pays approach a pyramid scheme? Cash flow depends
entirely on fees from new articles. New article fees cover current
expenses. But if new article submissions slow, will the open access model
crash? Should open access providers be required to set aside a portion of
their revenues to fund a reserve for future expenses?
 
No, author-pays is not a pyramid scheme.  If authors stop submitting their
papers to an individual journal then it would no longer be financially
viable and may have to fold, but shouldn't this be the case? Why should
the research community support a journal that is not meeting the needs of
authors?  (Interestingly, the current big deals mean that libraries may be
paying for journals that are significantly late, owing to poor copy-flow!)  
Journals that supply authors with what they want (prestige, speed of
publication, levels of copyediting, etc.) will continue to attract authors
and survive.
 
2. Many participants in these discussions show a profound lack of
understanding of the ongoing costs involved in providing online content.
The often-stated assumption is that the major costs of publishing end once
an article is published. We publish subscription newsletters in the
healthcare field and we spend a substantial amount of time and resources
on maintaining our online content, including customer support, technical,
regulatory, and access issues. Assuming that the cost of providing online
access is infinitesimal is like assuming that a library shouldn't incur
labor costs because it's just a building full of books and journals.
 
A couple of points here.  Firstly, I have no doubt that COR Health have
substantial costs associated with customer support and online access, but
surely many of these would disappear if the content was open access! The
second point is more general and, I think, more important.  For centuries
the library has been the keeper of the archive and ongoing access to
papers has been organised through the library.  Over the past five years
or so there appears to have been a shift to the idea that the publisher
would ensure ongoing access to online material.  Is this something that we
should be concerned about?  I would suggest that it is as there is no
guarantee that publishers will continue to find it economically profitable
to maintain an online archive (even in a subscription-based model).  Many
publishers decided that it was not economically worthwhile to maintain
print archives and have had to turn to the library community for material
to retro-digitise! Doesn't it make sense to have the library community
continue their stewardship of the archive?  Ongoing access to online
material then becomes a legitimate library costs, in the same way that
ongoing access to print is.
 
3. BioMed Central is often discussed as an example of a company devoted to
open access. Who owns BioMed Central? Who provides their financial
backing? Is their business model realistic? Do they produce a profit? If
their author-pays approach doesn't work, who will continue to provide
access? Will authors be left to fend for themselves? Will they be required
to pay additional fees for their articles to appear elsewhere? The Web
site states that the board should consider guarantees of continued open
access "if and when a change of ownership should be considered," but
continued open access through this service is not a certainty.
 
I will let others comment on BioMedCentral's financies (although they make
no secret of being a financial company who aim to make a profit!), however
I think that there are strong guarentees that the papers that have been
published by BioMedCentral will continue to be open access. All papers are
deposited and avilable through PubMedCentral.  There are a further two
archives (Potsdam and INIST) and more planned.  Plus, any library can
download and store all the open access papers published by BMC (see
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/libraries/archive).  Open access
actually gives more guarentees of long term access than subscription-based
access.
 
David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of D Anderson
Sent: 25 February 2004 23:28
Subject: Open access business models
 
I've been following the thoughtful discussions in this group and I've
noticed a lack of comments on open access business models by participants
with a knowledge of publishing. Here are some of my concerns:
 
1. Is the author-pays approach a pyramid scheme? Cash flow depends
entirely on fees from new articles. New article fees cover current
expenses. But if new article submissions slow, will the open access model
crash? Should open access providers be required to set aside a portion of
their revenues to fund a reserve for future expenses?
 
2. Many participants in these discussions show a profound lack of
understanding of the ongoing costs involved in providing online content.
The often-stated assumption is that the major costs of publishing end once
an article is published. We publish subscription newsletters in the
healthcare field and we spend a substantial amount of time and resources
on maintaining our online content, including customer support, technical,
regulatory, and access issues. Assuming that the cost of providing online
access is infinitesimal is like assuming that a library shouldn't incur
labor costs because it's just a building full of books and journals.
 
3. BioMed Central is often discussed as an example of a company devoted to
open access. Who owns BioMed Central? Who provides their financial
backing? Is their business model realistic? Do they produce a profit? If
their author-pays approach doesn't work, who will continue to provide
access? Will authors be left to fend for themselves? Will they be required
to pay additional fees for their articles to appear elsewhere? The Web
site states that the board should consider guarantees of continued open
access "if and when a change of ownership should be considered," but
continued open access through this service is not a certainty.
 
Dean H. Anderson
Publisher
COR Health
Insight ... not just news
http://www.corhealth.com