[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wellcome Trust report
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Wellcome Trust report
- From: Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 01:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:55:35 +0200 From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org> Subject: Wellcome Trust report Forgive me if I've sent this comment to LibLicense already! Could you forward if not? Thanks, Sally ___ The Wellcome Foundation funded a follow-up study to its previous 'Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing'; the new report, entitled 'Costs and Business Models in Scientific Research Publishing', can be found at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtpubrepcos.html. It's an interesting analysis and the cost figures presented are quite plausible (though it's not clear whether figures several years old have in fact been inflated to current-year levels in the calculations); they are much higher than some less realistic OA advocates have been suggesting. However, the author confuses the savings made by dropping print with those made by moving to open access, and thus replacing a subscription charging system with an author charging system, and doing away with the costs of licensing and sales. It is actually impossible to see, from the figures given, what the cost difference is between an online-only subscription journal and an online-only open access journal (the author also recognises that, in fact, many OA journals still find they need to sell print copies to some customers, but fails to allow for the cost of maintaining print systems in order to do so). Even more importantly, the author falls into his own trap of confusing costs (and direct costs at that) with prices. Despite several comments to the effect that an amount needs to be added to the bare cost figures to cover (a) overheads and (b) profit or surplus - and a recognition that the latter is essential to staying in business, whether commercial or not - he fails to do so himself, stating that his estimate of direct costs - 175 dollars per article submitted, plus 550-675 dollars per article published - would be appropriate author charges. Neither does he take any account of the percentage of authors who might be unable to pay. I suspect that his estimates of per-article direct costs will be treated, by Open Access enthusiasts, as a recommended charge to authors, while clearly this would not be viable. And even at the figures he gives, researchers outside the particularly well-funded areas of STM (and not even all of STM is well funded) would, I imagine, have the greatest difficulty in obtaining such sums from research or other funding; all the more so once overheads and profit have been added. A smaller but important point is that I think the assumption of the percentage of journal revenue received from non-academic sources is far too low - the EPS analysis of the STM market, and the recent report from Credit Suisse/First Boston, suggest a much higher figure. This makes a difference when one compares a situation where costs are covered by both academic and commercial communities, with one where all the costs move to the academic community - the effects would, of course, be particularly acutely felt in areas like medicine and pharmaceuticals. The accompanying press release suggests that publishing costs could be reduced by up 30% by a move to Open Access. This is nonsense; most of the saving would be due to a move to online-only, as mentioned above. Indeed, reduction of publishing revenues by 30% would put many very valuable journals out of business (see the typical society surplus levels mentioned above). But again, this will be - indeed, has already been - taken as gospel by some, with potentially damaging effects. I tackled the consultant who wrote the report about these two problems: the fact that an adequate distinction is not made between savings made by dropping print, and savings (and new costs) made by moving to open access; and the failure, despite comments in the text, to make any allowance whatever for overheads or profit/surplus. He conceded both points and said that he had never intended to give that impression. Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457 E-mail: chief-exec@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org
- Prev by Date: Re: Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access Self-Archiving
- Next by Date: Re: A COUNTER concern.
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost of Open Access Journals: Other Observations
- Next by thread: Re: Wellcome Trust report
- Index(es):