How to fund open access journals from available sources

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

How to fund open access journals from available sources

This is the outline of a plan using available money without requiring
changes in the academic world to provide funding for true open access
journals. It is based on the example of a single publication produced by a
non-profit society. (This plan is inspired, in part, by Ross Atkinson’s
earlier posting on this list, and by discussions with the students in my
doctoral seminar at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science.)

There are three components: voluntary payments by libraries, voluntary
charges to authors/universities/sponsors, and economies arising from open
access publication.

Libraries have long been accustomed to paying for publications by
maintaining memberships in the publishing organization. (Many research
libraries spend several hundred thousand dollars a year on such
memberships.) Sometimes this is more economical than a corporate
subscription, and sometimes it is the only way to obtain the material..
Libraries also contribute small sums to particularly worthwhile
experimental projects, even if the results do not provide any direct
economic benefit. What libraries are not generally willing to do is make
open-ended financial commitments, or significantly increase the amount
they pay for individual publications. What libraries are unable to do, at
least by themselves, is bring about changes in the financial system
supporting academic research.

I propose that the publisher of a journal declare that the journal will be
totally open access in electronic format, but that libraries (and others)
that have been subscribers are invited to contribute, at a suggested
amount of about 3/4 of the current rate (with the proviso that any library
that can contribute only a smaller amount is welcome to do so). I think
that most research libraries will gladly accept the 25 percent savings
rather than be free-loaders; it is a long time since there have been
negative price changes! If even 3/4 of the libraries do pay, this will
yield just over half the current subscription revenue. The key difference
from previous proposals is that the members of the university, along with
the rest of the world, will get access to all the articles--whether or not
their library pays.

Most authors (or more realistically their departments, universities, or
research sponsors) have been willing to pay reasonable sums for
publication; they have done so for high-prestige journals even before open
access. The amount that publishers suggest they would need to charge
ranges from $500 to $8000 per article. The only known trustworthy value
for cost per article is the $1500 reported by the American Physical
Society; various plausible but unproven reasons can be suggested why
journals in other subjects might need more. The percentage of authors
paying publication charges has been reported as high as 90 percent, but
this is in well-funded fields. If the suggested publication charge is half
the total cost, probably 3/4 will pay some or all of this reduced charge;
this gives an amount about equal to the other half of the current revenue.
An incentive to discourage unrealistic submissions leading to high
rejection rates can be added by requesting an initial fee for submission,
and an additional amount for publication. As customary, the payment of the
fee is handled separately from the editorial decision-making. The key
difference from previous proposals is that only half the actual cost need
be recovered at the author/sponsor end. There will remain an incentive to
lower the suggested cost to the author, thus reducing excessive or
unrealistic pricing. Obviously these figures will vary with each
publication: they can be adjusted as needed to yield the revenue to
produce a journal.

There will be some lowering of costs from electronic-only open access
production. Paper subscriptions would still be available, presumably at
somewhat over total cost (including the extra cost needed for the
multiformat preparation). This will remove the cost disadvantage of
material with extensive illustrations, and the need to charge extra for
color.  Since all the electronic material will be open access, there will
be no need for authorization servers, staff to handle authorization
problems, contracts, negotiations, or licensing.

The basic feature of this plan is the provision of two major revenue
streams, thus greatly reducing risk. The cost to libraries will be
reduced; the cost to authors will be affordable.

Many additional points remain to be explored:

1. The financial details for any particular title 
2. The financial risk involved to a society
3. The role of society memberships
4. Applicability to groups of publications produced by a society 
5. Applicability to commercial publishers 
6. Coexistence with other publishing models 
7. The practical rate of transition
8. The manner of archiving, as there will be no contractual provisions
9. Applicability to primary research material other than journal articles.
   Some points need not be explored because they are not directly relevant 
   to this model, but rather of more general concern:
a. The role of peer -review
b. The relationship between publication and tenure
c. The role of secondary services and metadata harvesting
d. The most appropriate copyright model in an international context.

I emphasize that I do not propose this as necessarily the best of all
possible models, but rather as one that is financially practicable in a
range of circumstances, while not making difficult changes in
institutional arrangements.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu