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

Revision to Physical Review B data



In response to the email of Mark Doyle on Tue, 5 Apr 2005
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0504/msg00389.html

Mark is correct, the numbers in my Online article for Physical Review B
were actually for another title. The correct numbers for PRB are below. The significant point remains the same, perhaps even more strikingly
demonstrated by this larger publication:

Direct author charges will be enormous and untenable for authors and their
high-publication institutions if total support migrates to institutional
fees. Sharing costs equally among research libraries, or using
differential pricing across the largest group of libraries (including
corporate libraries), is still the most efficient way to spread the real
costs of the expensive peer review process.

Maintaining an adequate short-term revenue stream through some sort of
temporary consortial payment plan may provide us with the time we need to
move toward a reasonable direct payment model, removing the redundant and
inefficient method of funneling funds indirectly through universities and
corporations and then to publishers.

Of course we should also seek to reduce the peer review publication costs
in every possible way ... see my radical "post-publication peer review
model" for one example of reducing costs by reducing the number of
expensive rejections. This model still allows for complete searching and
archiving of submitted material that has not been nominated for the more
expensive peer review process. If this distribution and peer review
process were managed by non-profit editorial boards with society
imprimatur, we could reduce the endless proliferation and
commercialization of the publish-or-perish cycle.
http://www.library.yale.edu/scilib/modmodexplain.html

The numbers below show two sets of costs, one for the most efficient and
documented pubilication fee announced by a library-based ejournal ($850)
and the other for the PRB estimate of costs as described by Mark Doyle
($2,000).

Physical Review B: 5109 articles in 2004

cost of publication = 5109 x $850/article = $4,342,650
5109 x $2000/article = $10,218,000

The current Yale expenditure is $8,740.
Yale author charges for 2004 = 19 articles @ $850 = $16,150
@ $2000 = $38,000

Shared (equal) fees among multiple libraries
at $850 per article

* if 20 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $217,133 per year
* if 60 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $72,378 per year
* if 120 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $36,189 per year
* if 200 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $21,713 per year

at $2000 per article
* if 20 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $510,900 per year
* if 60 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $170,300 per year
* if 120 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $85,150 per year
* if 200 libraries subscribe, annual cost for each is $51,090 per year

Differential pricing model:

if 200 libraries share 3/4 of cost and 200 libraries cover 1/4 cost
Higher cost Lower cost

at $850/article $32,570 $10,856
at $2000/article $38,318 $12,773

The OA author charge numbers are frightening high for large producers, and
are not predictable from year to year, as they are based upon unknown
author output. The shared costs are very high, due to the smaller number
of remaining subscriptions, but at least they can be budgeted. Neither
seems to be a better short-term solution for any but the smallest (and
corporate) libraries as we search for a more stable and less commercial
model for distribution of not-for-profit scholarly material.

David Stern
Director of Science Libraries and Information Services
Kline Science Library
219 Prospect Street
P.O. Box 208111
New Haven, CT 06520-8111

phone: 203 432-3447
fax: 203 432-3441
email: david.e.stern@yale.edu