[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Calculating the Cost : an author rejoinder

I am happy to address Phil's two "most important conclusions":

1. The Cornell Report's definition of "institution" is the Library, and
the costs appear to be calculated solely in respect of library costs. This
approach does nothing to mould together the research process and the
library process, the division between which is at the heart of the problem
with the present scholarly communication system. Looking at the costs of
the entire process, what difference would it make to the Cornell
calculations if payments by authors for colour illustrations or central
computing support for the library were included in the cost of the present
system? Libraries have a crucial role to play under all subscription and
open access models, but the whole institution rather than the library
alone has to be the focus for costs and for benefits.

2. The distinction between the "on-ramp" and the "off-ramp" is also an
artificial distinction. Looking at academic research as a single process,
access to the results is as much a part of that process as the compilation
of research data. On that basis there is no automatic justification for
assuming that large research institutions will have to find additional
funds to pay for open access. I realise that humanities research operates
under different funding conditions, but certainly for STM research
"off-ramp" costs should be containable within the total cost of research.

I agree with Phil that there are many unanswered questions but I do
believe that a better system can emerge for all stakeholders (including
publishers) through a holistic approach to the research process.

Fred Friend

----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Calculating the Cost : an author rejoinder

Dear liblicense,

I intentionally posted my ARL Open Access spreadsheet on Jan 2 without
conclusions or discussion since I wanted to chiefly disseminate the data
and show a possible economic model -- a model in which libraries use their
subscription funds to pay author charges in a producer-pays model. The
model is admittedly simple and doesn't take in consideration many of the
complexities of an author-pays and subscription model into consideration. Many of you (Morrison, Goodman, Prosser) have pointed out its flaws on
liblicense.

The purpose of me writing this rejoinder is because I fear that readers
have not addressed the principal conclusions of this model, and addressed
its implications. I don't think it matters exactly how much money we can
save by using geriatric volunteers in the review process, or by moving our
publishing houses to North Dakota. Similarly, I don't think it matters
exactly what percentage of articles indexed in ISI reflect the total
output of reachers, exactly what percentage of a library's funds go to
purchase scholarly journals, or how much money in the system can be
attributed to page charges. Now that I've insulted many of the readers,
let me post what I think were the most important conclusions:

1) A producer-payment model will cost some institutions more than others,
and most of the costs will be transferred to the largest research
institutions. It is foolish to believe that everyone is going to benefit
when an economic model is radically changed. Those who argue as such are
committing the 'fallacy of division'.

2) If we use a model where the institution uses its funds to pay to
produce information (the on-ramp), rather than access (the off-ramp) AND
we merely use the funds that have been traditionally used to access
information (i.e. the library), then we will need to find additional
funds for the institutions who produce the majority of scholarly output. In essence, a producer pays model will require significant subvention in
the marketplace.

Based on these two factual statements, I was hoping that some of the
following discussions would arise:

Will a producer-pays model ever be in the author's/institution's best
interest? If not, what form of subvention and incentives are required so
that it is in everyone's interest to participate?

Is government necessary to impose these changes, or will authors reinvent
the system themselves if it doesn't suit their needs? What is the role of
government in scholarship and in the dissemination of ideas?

What may be the unintended consequences of moving to a new economic model? Does the new economic model really address some of the principal problems
in the current subscription model, like the insensitivity of prices on
behalf of authors and readers. What will be the collateral damage on some
types of publishers if the model is changed?

If neither a subscription-based model nor a producer-pays model is problem
free, what kind of hybrid model represents the best of both worlds? Is
there a 'best of all possible worlds'?

In summary, if we are to continue a constructive dialog, we may need to
move to some of the larger issues, or be trapped arguing exactly how many
angels can fit on the end of pin.

--Phil Davis