Re: Springer Open Choice uptake affects 2011 journal pricing

[JOHANNES VELTEROP <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Bill,

Funny, your PAPAPA model, but not quite to the point. POGA stands 
opposed to the hybrid model in this discussion, which is 
"Pay-or-don't-pay-the-only-difference-is-OA" (a rhyme, this time, 
as there is no suitable acronym :-). The hybrid model gives the 
choice to the authors, many of whom don't seem to care too much 
about OA, unfortunately.   Your "pay-twice-for-nothing" moniker 
is ridiculous. Sorry. The 'double dipping' allegation is perhaps 
a suspicion you (and many others) like to harbour, but I have so 
far not seen any evidence in fact. And you know what? It may even 
happen, in some cases. But here, as everywhere else, it's 'caveat 
emptor'. Ignore the OA articles in a hybrid journals, and judge 
the price purely on the non-OA content. Then compare to other 
journals, or to your own perception of a fair price. If the 
journal fails that test, cancel. Or not, and keep moaning. Who 
knows, one day it might even help.  Your point 1) is fair 
comment. The only thing I haven't seen evidence for is "the vast 
majority" of journals charging colour fees and levying page 
charges. But even if it is a minority, it's a very good argument 
in favour of POGA journals. I'm for POGA, in case you haven't 
noticed, and to me calling it 'pay-or-go-away' is not derogatory 
in any way, but simply a matter of clarity.  In spite of the 
clarity, and as for your point 2), you may well be right that 
there is no evidence of impecunious authors being turned away. I 
have no evidence for those authors simply not even trying (for 
instance because they don't want to be seen as being 
impecunious), but I do regard that as a strong possibility. One 
of the reasons why they are not being turned away as yet, is 
likely the as yet small proportion of non-paying authors 
submitting. I wonder if there are any stats. Do you have those? 
And I wonder what would happen if non-paying authors would start 
to flood the PLoS and BMC journals with their submissions.  As 
said, I'm a strong supporter of the POGA model, and the only 
model that I can see that's better still, is one where the costs 
are borne not just by those articles that are published, but by 
all the articles that are being submitted and place a burden of 
work on the publisher as well as the peer-review system. In other 
words, a submission fee system (rather like an exam fee system, 
where you pay whether or not you pass) with no, or very little, 
extra cost if the article is published. It would be fairer on 
everyone, alleviate the extra burden on peer-review of 
'cascading' down the journal pecking order with repeat 
rejections/submissions cycles (with the need, every time, to be 
reviewed again), and make it possible for these fees to remain in 
a narrow band of variability, as the cost to journals is not so 
dependent on their acceptance rate any longer. Would a major 
publisher (I include PLoS and BMC in those) dare to go that 
route?

Best,
Jan

From: Bill Hooker <cwhooker@fastmail.fm>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: Saturday, 26 June, 2010 1:06:09
Subject: Re: Springer Open Choice uptake affects 2011 journal 
pricing

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?

<snip>


Bill Hooker