Re: arithmetic, Re: PLoS New Fee Structure

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

I have come in at the end of this correspondence so I may have 
missed something. I did not receive the postings on this list for 
a period due to computer malfunction: some may have appreciated 
that.

However I did read Peter Suber's comments in his newsletter and 
felt that he really was twisting the evidence - to my surprise.

I have been a publisher of scholarly journals since 1971 working 
for UK publishers or the UK branch of North American publishers. 
I never been responsible for a journal that charged page charges. 
Page charges have always been the special province of US learned 
society publishers and their subscription rates have reflected 
this.

I do not think that I have ever been responsible for a journal 
that charged for excess pages but I might have been. It is a way 
of fitting in more papers if the journal is really popular with 
authors. It complements an increase in the rejection rate which 
can become too high for the good of the journal. If the rejection 
rate is too high some authors stop submitting.

I have definitely been responsible for journals which charge 
colour charges. I do not like such charges. No charges that 
prevent the author putting forward his or her "message" in an 
optimal form is a good thing.

For publishers outside the US and indeed any interest in 
attracting international authors, any charge cuts down the range 
of authors and discourages and even prevents some authors from 
offering their papers. Surely this is obvious whether or not the 
journal is OA.

Anthony Watkinson

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Walters" <William.Walters@millersville.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: arithmetic, Re: PLoS New Fee Structure

> Dr. Goodman is correct.
>
> The data I compiled for "Institutional journal costs in an Open 
> Access environment" show that the average page charge paid by 
> the authors at nine colleges/universities in general biology, 
> cell biology, organic chemistry, and applied physics from 1999 
> through 2003 was $271 per article.  Counting only those 
> journals that levied page charges, the average charge was $570.
>
> (These data include page charges, extra-page charges, and the 
> submission fees charged by just a few of the journals.  They do 
> not include charges for color figures.  My study includes only 
> those Source Journals covered by Science Citation Index.  The 
> nine schools are Michigan, Brandeis, Florida International, St. 
> Bonaventure, Peru State, Grinnell, West Virginia Wesleyan, 
> Augustana, and Old Westbury.  See 
> http://www.library.millersville.edu/public_html/walters/journal_costs.pdf
>   for methodological details.)
>
> I agree that the new PLoS fee of $2,500 is still reasonable,
> however -- especially for PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.
>
> Bill
>
> William H. Walters, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Librarianship
> Collection Development Librarian
> Helen A. Ganser Library
> Millersville University
> Millersville, PA 17551-0302
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of David Goodman
> Sent: Fri 06/16/06 8:19 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: arithmetic, Re: PLoS New Fee Structure
>
> The posting cannot mean:
>
>> The new prices compare favorably with the fees that authors
>> often pay to publish their work in traditional journals
>> (between $1000-$3000 ..).
>
> because it is not true that $2500 is less than an average of
> $1000-$3000.
>
> Further, since most publishers, including the largest ones, ask
> no publication charge at all, and a few who do charge, have the
> fee less than $1000, the range should have been given as
> $0-$3000. The use of "often" makes a valid quantitative
> comparison impossible unless a more exact average were taken,
> corrected for at least the type and length of the article, and
> the subject field of the journal.
>
> Perhaps the posting meant that non-commercial OA journals are
> slightly less expensive than commercial OA or OA Choice
> publishers-- $2500 is less than e.g, Springer's $3000. Regardless
> of significance, that at least has the arithmetic correct.
>
> I do not mean to imply that publishing an article OA in a PLoS
> journal is not worth the $2500. I think it certainly is, and that
> they do not need to use evasive language and dubious numbers to
> make their case.
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> and formerly
> Princeton University Library
>
> dgoodman@liu.edu