Re: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model

[JOHANNES VELTEROP <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

 --- heatherm@eln.bc.ca wrote: 
[snip]
> 
> One issue that Phil's analysis highlights, which I think is very
> important, is that production-based models do not factor in potential
> contributions by other players, such as non-research libraries and
> corporations.  I believe there must be ways to involve these groups as
> well.  For example, it makes sense to me that governments would provide
> some subsidy for an OA scholarly publishing scheme for the benefits that
> accrue to the education system, and for government employees.  It would
> probably be best if this was only a small portion of the total, to avoid
> the potential of government control (some might prefer no contributions
> and no potential for control whatsoever, of course).
>
> There could be other opportunities for contributions by other sectors,
> such as using the tax regime to manage corporate contributions (i.e.
> corporations which apply for tax relief due to R & D could have the
> option of making their results openly accessible, or contributing to a
> fund to be distributed to the research-producing universities).  One
> reason to hesitate before adopting such a scheme is that it may not be
> necessary - and having the research universities control the funding
> entirely leaves the control of the system entirely in their hands.

Don King recently presented figures (Cologne, Dec 6, 2004, download his
presentation here: http://www.zbmed.de/summit/PPking.pdf) that indicate
that, at least in the US, 7% of university research funding comes from
industry. When looking at his own university, the University of
Pittsburgh, he observed that industry was the source of 25% of "funds
leading to articles". In a production-based funding model for
publications, these would be the proportions of industry's financial
contribution.

Isn't there the possibility that the issue of industry 'free-riding' is a
smokescreen put up by those who would benefit from keeping open access
publishing models at bay?

The aggregate proportion of industry funding of *research* publications
through subscriptions I estimate to be below 5% (though it is likely to
vary by discipline). I am aware that Elsevier testified in the UK
Parliamentary inquiry that it was 30%, but apparently when challenged
afterwards to substantiate that figure, they couldn't or wouldn't. It is
in any event likely that they included in their figure *all* revenue from
industry, such as licence deals with MDL, other databases, books,
reference works, review journals, none of which which are, of course, the
subject of Open Access.

I'm ready to be corrected on the figure of 5%, if with auditable data.

Jan Velterop

Happy New Year to you all!