RE: PLoS

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

Anthony is undoubtedly right in spotting difficulties of transition for
traditional publishers. His question: "Is going OA safer than relying on
the current system to handle the expected increase in research and the
concomitant increase in research articles?" I'm (not surprisingly)
inclined to answer with a firm "yes", as the OA publishing model is
directly and intrinsically linked to the research output. Unlike the
traditional subsciption model.

But models are only models and should be serving the needs of the
scientific community. May this be an appropriate point to remind us all of
the words of Richard Horton, Editor, in a recent editorial in The Lancet?:

"The long-term goal for any editor of a primary research medical journal
is to strengthen the culture of scientific inquiry and to improve human
health. These are the ultimate yardsticks by which readers, authors,
funding agencies, librarians, and publishers should judge the success of
journals. In the sometimes divisive debate about open access, let us not
lose sight of the fact that the publishing model is simply a means to a
much greater end, an end that has far too long been neglected."

What is true for medical journals is also true, mutatis mutandis, for
journals in other disciplines. So let's heed Richard's words and focus the
discussion on what is best for science and society instead of what is best
for publishers.

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Watkinson [mailto:anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: 29 February 2004 21:46
> Subject: Re: PLoS
> 
> I do not agree with David Prosser that we have found a sustainable OA
> model for publishers or for that matter a transition model that looks
> likely to work for those publisher and their editors/editorial boards 
> that have to put their money where there mouth is. Because we 
> currently have no evidence of how volatile or not the enthusiasm of 
> authors to pay for OA is going to be the decision making process is 
> nothing like the relative predictability of likely income for a journal 
> at the time of pricing. As far as subscription income is concerned, it 
> is difficult for the difference between budget and actual to be that 
> different unless their is a RoweCom episode. As a former Head of 
> Journals at OUP I would be very surprised if the pricing procedures in 
> that organisation have changed dramatically since my time (except that 
> they are much more efficiently handled!) and presumably he was involved 
> in these pricing procedures before he got his present job.
> 
> The three publishers he mentions may be thinking about handling the
> transition (I am sure they are) in the sense that they intend 
> to reduce subscription rates to their journals in 2005 but there have 
> (as far as I can tell) been no announcements yet. I cannot indeed find 
> any mention of OA on the site of the American Physiological Society but 
> it is a big site and it may be hidden away somewhere.  OUP to their 
> credit have given lots of information and rational justification of 
> what they are doing.
> 
> OUP point out:
> 
> "The 2004 author charges represent a substantial discount on the charge 
> that would be required to fully fund publication."
> 
> COB point out:
> 
> "Authors choosing to take advantage of the open access alternative will 
> be charged a publication fee, which, as an introductory offer, will be
> heavily subsidised by The Company of Biologists".
> 
> In practice, and I know that OUP do not hide this fact and do not need 
> to hide it, the income from author charges in 2004 represents 
> additional and unbudgeted bonus for the accounts for the relevant 
> journals this year. This is hardly a subsidy! The crunch has yet to 
> come.
> 
> However I do agree that he asks a reasonable question and one 
> which any other publisher will have to face up to. Is going OA safer 
> than relying on the current system to handle the expected increase in 
> research and the concomitant increase in research articles? Personally I 
> do not have an answer but it will be interesting to see some. I thought 
> the OhioLink/Academic Press first Big Deal (win,win,win) would not work
> because librarians and their patrons would be more concerned with
> selection than access and I am published on this topic. I do not find I 
> am good at the prediction of models but others are. Perhaps Mr. 
> Prosser is good at predictions - time will tell.
> 
> I have never before seen this expected increase used as an argument for 
> OA and I am interested in the implications.  One answer is that SPARC 
> and the ARL, instead of omitting a line showing the increase of 
> papers in journals from their graphs showing increase in journal prices, 
> might start lobbying for more money for libraries because of this 
> increase. Libraries do need better funding.
> 
> Anthony Watkinson