Re: Springer blasts Open Choice criticism

[heatherm@eln.bc.ca]

This is in reply to two messages from Sally:

I would like to repeat that the ICAAP cost of $3,000 Cdn ($2,300 U.S.) per
journal helps to set the right frame for discussion about what the right
ballpark costs for journal production might be in the future.  David
Goodman's estimate of $1,500 - $3,000 U.S. for a high-end journal in the
sciences, is a very reasonable estimate of the actual costs of these
journals, as they are produced at present in the U.S.  This, naturally
includes the need to produce both print and electronic, as well as the
authentication control mechanisms that go with non-open access journals.

The ICAAP amount covers more than just the software - which is free - it
also covers technological support costs, conversion, etc.  A higher cost
rate to reflect editing costs might well be justified; let's look at some
options.

The following is a scenario for a very high-end journal:

A journal with a full-time editor at the rate of $100,000 Cdn per year (on
the high end of Cdn.  academic salary scales), plus a full-time editorial
assistant at $30,000 Cdn per year, plus allowing for a fairly standard
business overhead rate of 13%, plus the $3,000 ICAAP, comes out to about
$150,000.  Assuming that a well-staffed journal like this could manage an
output roughly equivalent to, say, Analytic Chemistry - 24 issues per
year, assuming average of 30 articles per issue, (720 per year), this
comes out to $208 Cdn per article, or about $158 U.S.

Another way of looking at this:  the rate of $3,000 per article should
cover more than 10 full-time, highly paid expert editors, plus 10
copyediting assistants. Is this really necessary?

Yet another way of looking at this:  it does not make sense to only ask
those who are benefitting financially from the present system what the
costs are.  This would be like giving an individual a million dollars,
then asking them a year hence what their monthly expenses were.  When it
comes to cost analysis, something more concrete - and objective - is
necessary.

Other kinds of journals could certainly manage with less revenue.  A
smaller journal would not need full-time editing staff; a less high-end
journal would not need a top-salary editor.  I'm sure that I could manage
a small journal, using as volunteer time no more than another academic
might spend on volunteer editing or peer reviewing, if I chose.  The kind
of help that I would see myself not needing, but wanting, is help with
proofreading, formatting, etc.

cheers,

Heather Morrison

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:39:00 EDT liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu wrote:
> I agree that $3000 is probably the right ball-park, to cover direct costs
> (see Wellcome report) plus overheads plus a moderate profit (which just
> about every organisation needs)
> 
> We heard at a conference last week that (a) the charge will be held at
> $3000 for at least 5 years, possibly longer and (b) that the
> subscription/licence price will decline each year by the percentage of
> articles in the previous year that took up the Open Choice option.  
> Internal estimates are 10 -20 percent.
> 
> It will be good to hear in December how the uptake is actually going.
> 
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> E-mail:  chief-exec@alpsp.org