Re: Evaluation and open access & timing

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I entirely agree with Heather in one respect. We cannot expect immediate
results.

However it does seem that it is reasonable to ask for a "plan". Let me
give an example of what I mean.

The high profile journals in OA are the two PLOS journals, which promise
to be of very high quality. They offer (as far as I can tell) the same
service that normal subscription-based journals offer including all those
editorial services (usually incorrectly called "copy-editing") as well as
the sort of peer-review process which allows for many revisions. These
services are not offered by most OA journals that I know of.

According to Dr. Varmus, PLOS Biology is due to break even in two years
time.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the model is a sound and
sustainable one?

I have been responsible for starting quite a number of journals in my time
in publishing. I have worked for four publishing companies one of which
was non-profit and have consulted with a number of others so I think I can
speak authoritatively in what follows.

When a journal is proposed by an editor, a business plan has to be
formulated as part of the proposal to management. The business plan
projects costs and income over five to seven years. It is partly based on
experience and partly on market research.

No journal is accepted by management unless it is projected that the money
invested is recovered. The journal may break even (as projected)  in a few
years in the sense that the costs in that year are balanced and exceeded
in the year in question.. I believe three years is aimed for usually.
However for the project to be accepted the money spent on the journal in
the years before it breaks even and the notional interest incurred has to
be recovered before the journal is seen as moving into viability. A lot of
money is spent on launching a new journal. It takes longer to recover this
investment.

In the case of PLOS I would be amazed if the very large sum - was it $9m?
- received from the Moore Foundation is being recovered. This funding
represents what is for a normal publisher (for-profit or non-profit) the
equivalent of the investment from central funds.

I wonder also if the large editorial forces, the worthy and indeed
excellent people employed by PLOS, are allocated to the journal. If you
have only one product or now two one would expect quite a number of them
to be allocated to these products especially as the number of names
fronting advocacy of (marketing of) these two journals seems to be
impressively large.

As Heather points out we need to look five years down the line. PLOS have
ambitious plans. How are they to be funded when the money from the
Foundation runs out? Are they expecting to get more grants from
well-wishers? If not money will have to come from a surplus on the
existing two journals. What level of surplus are we aiming for.

Of course the surplus will be needed for other purposes. A prestige
journal cannot afford to lag behind the competition. Publishers are
currently faced by a constant need to enhance their offering in order that
they do not lose their authors and their users. There is no reason to
suppose this annual need to upgrade will somehow plateau.

As we know the number of learned bodies doing experiments with OA
worldwide is minimal and the number of learned bodies totally committed to
OA funding is minute. If they do not have a sustainable model, a plan
which looks sensible and which can stand scrutiny, it is unlikel that the
number will grow.

I know that a number of advocates of OA say that it does not matter
whether or not you have a plan. The argument I have heard from good
friends. whose posting I expect almost instantaneously, is that a full
scenario is not needed. It will all work out for the best if we get rid of
the current system.

It is however my impression (backed up by what evidence there is) that the
great majority of academics do not want to get rid of the current system
and they are suspicious of the OA system. Those engaged in starting new
journals and those who might wish to convert existing journals are not
(usually) going to wish to invest their time in a model which does not
have evidence of its sustainability and (more important) is not backed up
by a sound business plan. Academics know about business plans in my
experience.

I am writing in my individual capacity as a publishing consultant and not
on behalf of my various paymasters.

Anthony Watkinson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heather Morrison" <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:41 PM
Subject: Evaluation and open access & timing

> There appears to be a trend towards evaluation of open access
> publications, which is, of course, welcome and necessary.  It is very
> encouraging to see early indications that open access journals and
> articles have good impact, which only makes sense.
>
> While evaluation is essential, I would suggest that timing can be a
> critical factor in evaluation, from either a scientific or business
> viewpoint.
>
> When conducting a scientific study, evaluation of results does not
> conclude until the effects of what one is studying take place.  For
> example, in a pharmaceutical study, one might evaluate impact of a new
> drug shortly after starting a treatment session, but if you anticipate
> that it might take a month for the drug to take effect, you do not draw
> any conclusions until measurements are taken after this time.
>
> New businesses generally take some time to become profitable.  Imagine
> what would happen to the restaurant business, for example (which already
> has a very high failure rate), if bankers formed their conclusions about
> profitability two weeks after opening.

[SNIP]

> Shifting to open access involves inventing and implementing new ways of
> publishing, as well as authors and others changing the way we do things.
> This takes time.  The proper time to begin evaluating open access journals
> will be in about 5 years time or so.  Until then, some preliminary
> evaluation - to adjust models, that sort of thing - is appropriate.
> Conclusions, however, are not.
>
> As always, this is purely my personal opinion as a professional librarian,
> not an official position of ELN.
>
> Heather G. Morrison
> Email:  heatherm@eln.bc.ca