RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Sally

Yes, costs have to be covered irrespective of the access model. 
Yes, some open access journals rely to some extent on sponsorship 
to cover the costs, but then so do some subscription-based 
journals.  For example, you will recall the survey that you 
commissioned for ALPSP that showed that a third of 
society-published journals surveyed made a loss - they were being 
sponsored by their societies.

And yes, some open access journals are supported indirectly, with 
institutions picking-up some or all of the costs of time, office 
accommodation and services, and computing resources, etc.  In 
exactly the same way as for some subscription-based journals some 
or all of these costs are picked-up by the institutions.  (Of 
course, some journals pay for these costs - both 
subscription-based and open access.)

As for opportunity costs, let's admit that the vast majority of 
scholarly journals rely on these 'hidden' costs.  From the 
'costs' of authors writing their papers, to the 'costs' of 
referees reviewing papers (mostly for free), to the 'costs' of 
Editors (and I know that in some fields some Editors are paid 
well, but in others they go either unpaid or receive honoraria 
far below their 'hourly rate').  I'm not sure why you consider 
these costs important for open access journals but not for 
journals with other access models.

So, we have a variety of revenue streams - for both 
subscription-based and open access journals - and a variety of 
subsidy-levels through the academic community picking-up 
opportunity costs and what might be called overhead costs - 
again, both for subscription-based and open access journals.  We 
appear to be creating a false dichotomy (as with the 'barrier to 
authors' argument) that does not reflect the true spectrum that 
actually cuts across access models.

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: 10 July 2007 21:06
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

Open Access journals that don't charge authors (and some that do) 
are being paid for somewhere else.  It may be explicit, as with 
the Moore Foundation sponsorship for PLoS or that of Ishikawa for 
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.  Or it may 
be implicit, where the editor's parent organization is covering 
the costs of time (salaries and associated costs), office 
accommodation and services, and computing resources.  Some 
naively (in my view) argue that these costs do not exist since 
the people, office and computer were there anyway - but what 
about opportunity cost?  They could all be doing other things.

I don't think anyone has compared the fortunes and reputation of 
those OA journals that do and don't charge authors.  It would be 
interesting to see whether there is, in fact, any difference...


Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk