Re: Springer Open Choice uptake affects 2011 journal pricing

["Bill Hooker" <cwhooker@fastmail.fm>]

Oh, that's nice.  So, shall we call subscription journals the 
"Pay and Pay and Pay Again" (PAPAPA) model, now?  For hybrid 
models, such a reasonable compromise so long as no one looks too 
closely at the double dipping, how about the "Pay Twice For 
Nothing" moniker?

Let's get two things straight about "pay or go away":

1. Subscription journals tell both authors AND readers to pay or 
go away: not only do they charge for access, but the vast 
majority of them also levy page and colour charges that can add 
up to considerably more than most Gold OA fees -- excuse the self 
link, I have some calculations here:

http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/06/authorside_fee_comparison_oa_v.php

which indicate the average author-side fee levied by PAPAPA 
journals is around $1100.  This figure is consistent with a brief 
examination of a handful of journals and with the very small 
number of official figures I have been able to find.  It surely 
puts a one-time upfront Gold OA payment of, say, $1300 (PLoS ONE) 
or $1470 (most BMC journals) in a different light.

2.Someone who wants to call Gold OA "Pay Or Go Away" had better 
have some evidence of authors being turned away for want of the 
ability to pay; I know of not one single case.  Both PLoS and BMC 
have a waiver system, kept scrupulously separate from editorial 
decision making, to ensure that no one who genuinely lacks the 
necessary funds is actually told "pay or go away".  I wonder what 
would happen if such authors asked a PAPAPA journal to waive 
their page and colour charges?

Bill Hooker

Disclaimer: I am on the editorial boards of PLoS ONE and BMC 
Research Notes; neither position is financially remunerated.

____

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:55 -0400, "Jan Velterop"
<velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> Of course there is something of a problem with 'hybrid' OA 
> journals.  The "Pay-Or-Go-Away" (POGA) model that PLoS, BMC, 
> Hindawi, etc. use, is easier to grasp by everybody. However, 
> hybrid journals are a reasonable transition model, as an 
> instant wholesale flip to POGA journals is not realistic.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> On 24 Jun 2010, at 01:32, FrederickFriend wrote:
>
> Jan's message introduces an element into the OA publication 
> charge / subscription relationship which contains an inherent 
> difficulty from a university management or library perspective, 
> viz. that publishers may recoup the cost of lost subscriptions 
> through not returning to the academic community savings due to 
> the double-payment of subscriptions and OA publication charges. 
> Due to the lack of transparency in publishers' business models, 
> universities and libraries would have no way of knowing whether 
> the lost subscriptions were anything to do with OA. Even if 
> they were, it is questionable whether recovering lost income by 
> double-charging for subscriptions and OA publication charges 
> would be justified, but the lost subscriptions could be for 
> many reasons not connected with OA, e.g. a drop in the quality 
> of the journals. Would publishers be saying that they intend to 
> maintain their income through OA publication charges however 
> many authors pay for OA under the hybrid model?
>
> Fred Friend
> JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL