Re: universities experiment with paying OA fees

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Price sensitivity is key to the solution, and I'm glad that David 
brings this point up again.  It also allows us to debate the 
rationality of different publisher models on economic (rather 
than moral) grounds.  The Report of the Cornell University 
Library Task Force on Open Access Publishing done in 2004 
contains a large section where we considered the implications of 
various models of funding (see pages 7-11 of 
http://hdl.handle.net/1813/193 ).  None of them, of course, is 
without problems.

What is unfortunate with the library experiments with author 
funds is that they are experiments.  There is little explicit 
rationale behind the programs except the need to try new models, 
and little theoretical basis explaining why THIS particular model 
is used over OTHER potential models.  The other problem with 
library experiments is that funding lines, once started, become 
permanent.  When an AUL for Collections talks about setting up an 
'experiment,' he/she is essentially mandating a permanent line. 
In the past, I argued (unsuccessfully) on economic grounds that 
if the library were willing to pay author fees for commercial OA 
publishers, that it should pay author page charges to non-profit 
society publishers.  Our ire for the commercial publishers could 
be redirected to helping the non-profit publishers.  Instead we 
funded BMC.

Using David's rationale, a subsidy program, where the library 
pays a % of the author publishing expenses retains price 
sensitivity, and if price sensitivity is at the heart of the 
problem, then this is indeed a model worth trying. Paying all 
fees until a limited budget runs out would encourage no rational 
behavior except to submit one's bills into the library ASAP.

What is becoming disheartening about this debate is that we've 
been restating the same arguments for the last five years and 
seem no closer to any resolution than before.  Are we missing any 
information that would help us move on, or are we destined to 
rehash the same arguments and talk past each other until a new 
model emerges?

--Phil Davis



David Prosser wrote:
> Sandy
>
> As you know, in the subscription business model users of journals
> (both authors and readers) are insulated from the cost of the
> journals they use. This has led to the disconnect between price
> and quality or service.
>
> A shift to publication charges makes it possible that the users
> (while acting as authors) will see the costs and be able to make
> decisions on whether they are getting value for money.  This
> could have an effect on prices as users will have an incentive
> 'shop around' based on the level of service they want from the
> journal.  I hedge with 'possible' and 'could' because it is clear
> that if there is no transparency in the way the funds are set-up
> we could have the situation you describe.  If the university pays
> the publisher without the author knowing the costs involved then
> we have the potential for a continuation of the current
> dysfunctional market (albeit with wider access).
>
> One of the alleged disadvantages of such funds is that they will
> led to discussions on campus about what can be published, where,
> and at what cost. If we want the market to function then this is
> actually a good thing!
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
>