Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

The conclusion that major producers of research will pay more in 
an open access environment now seems well supported (not that 
anyone, most of all Cornell, should have subjected Phil to the 
second-guessing his rigorous initial study received).

In what way does it make sense from a public policy perspective 
for an institution like the University of Michigan to effectively 
subsidize the students and faculty of, say, Kalamazoo College? 
This is not to disparage Kalamazoo, which has a exemplary record 
of educating undergraduates who go on to become top scientists. 
But Kalamazoo students hardly have need of the depth of 
information required by the graduate students of faculty of the U 
of M. What societal benefit are we gaining by having top 
producers subsidize minor producers?

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> pmd8@cornell.edu 04/24/06 8:23 PM >>>

A very detailed study of the effect of three different pricing
models (subscription, plus 2 producer-pays models) at small,
medium, and large universities has been completed by Bill Walters
(see abstract and link below).  This is the first analysis that
I've seen that is based on actual cost data, and not estimates,
averages, or best-case scenarios.  The conclusions support the
early work reported at Cornell University that research
institutions (net producers of information) will pay more in an
producer-pays Open Access environment [1, 2] --Phil Davis

****************

Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment
by William H. Walters
http://www.library.millersville.edu/public_html/walters/journal_costs.pdf

This study investigates the potential impact of Open Access
pricing on institutional journal expenditures in four subject
fields at nine American colleges and universities. Three pricing
models are evaluated: the Conventional Model (the current
subscription model), the PLoS Open Access Model (based on the
fees currently charged by the Public Library of Science), and the
Equal-Revenue Open Access Model (which maintains current levels
of total aggregate spending within each subject field). Because
institutional disparities in publishing productivity are far
greater than institutional disparities in library holdings, the
shift from a subscription-based model to either Open Access model
would bring dramatic cost savings (greater than 50%) for most
colleges and universities. At the same time, a small number of
institutions -- the top research universities -- would pay a far
higher proportion of the total aggregate cost.

References
[1]  Report of the CUL Task Force on Open Access Publishing Presented
to the Cornell University Library Management Team August 9, 2004.
http://hdl.handle.net/1813/193

[2]  Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription
Model. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/236