[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu, heatherm@eln.bc.ca
- Subject: Re: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model
- From: heatherm@eln.bc.ca
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:13:24 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:20:12 EST Phil Davis wrote: > Firstly, this very conservative model predicts that most ARL > institutions would pay more in a producer-pays model than in a > subscription model. Phil, with all due respect, I think the prediction is not supported by available data. I would agree that this is a fiscally conservative model - to me, a "worst-case" scenario. The cost per article is exaggerated. Even taking the Wellcome Trust figures and multiplying by 1.6 as Sally suggests - thanks Sally! - gives a range of $1,640 - $2,400 for author-charges journals. This accounts for 35% overhead and 15% profit. Whether 35% overhead and 15% profit are reasonable expectations is another question, of course. Both figures are lower than the low end on your chart. The actual author payments being charged by publishers are even lower than these estimates, however. (BMC $525, PLoS $1,500, Optics Express $450 under 6 pages, $800 over 8 pages). Estimates by some STM publishers of what they would need to charge are also significantly less - e.g. Peter Banks of Diabetes / Diabetes Care estimates about $1,700 for publication costs without print; another STM publisher privately quoted to me about $750 as necessary. The focus to date has been on STM publishing. It seems quite possible that social sciences and humanities would have lower costs still, because these areas have never enjoyed the high revenues that journals in the STM area have. This model also does not account for other very likely funding sources, such as funding agencies covering publication charges, and departmental funds (used by some libraries to supplement budgets to purchase subscriptions at present). As for the ISI data, if they do not cover all the journals, is it possible that they cover the more prolific STM journals - the ones with hundreds of articles per yet? In this case, a relatively small proportion of the journals could account for a disproportionate percentage of the total articles. In sum, you have reached a conclusion (that ARL libraries would pay more under a production-costs-based OA system), which, in my opinion, is not supported by the available data. This is not to say that anyone has proved that such a system is necessarily less expensive, only that more information and analysis - and possibly further developments - are needed before any conclusions can be reached. Unless, of course, we can agree that your data show that publication charges of less than $500 would result in cost savings as well as access/impact advantages for ALL the ARL libraries, and prioritize any publishers that can produce quality journal articles at this rate for experiments with shifting from funding subscriptions to funding OA? best, Heather Morrison
- Prev by Date: RE: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model
- Next by Date: Alternative Peer Review Models
- Previous by thread: Re: Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model
- Next by thread: OA musings
- Index(es):