Fwd: Calculating the Cost : an author rejoinder

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

with apologies for cross-posting -

re:  paragraph 2 - Phil Davis writes "the purpose of me writing this
rejoinder is because I fear that readers have not addressed the principal
conclusions of this model"...

Phil, will all due respect, one does not base accurate conclusions on
erroneous data.  The cost per article is a critical factor in your
calculations, and your low-end figure is higher than what many real-world
publishers charge and estimate, and higher than the figures reported in
the Wellcome Trust.

My suggestion would be to correct the data, rather than commencing a
discussion based on questionable conclusions.  One way to do this would be
to add a series of columns with different cost estimates per article,
illustrating whether libraries would pay more or less based on the cost.  
For example, if the cost - to the library budget, not necessarily the
total cost - were low enough, then ALL ARL libraries would save money by
diverting funds from subscription to an author-pays system.

One way to ensure that this cost was low:  place a maximum on the amount.  
If the author wishes to publish with a reasonably-priced publisher,
perhaps $500 for medium quality STM (perhaps lower for non-STM), up to
$1,500 for high-quality - the library pays.  If a faculty member would
like to publish with a much more expensive publisher, then the library
pays up to the maximum, but the author, department, or funder needs to pay
the remainder.  This system would provide authors with direct information
about the efficiency of this service, a factor which is currently lacking
and is likely one of the causes of the serials crisis.

This is not to say that Phil is not bringing up good points - he is - it's
just that a healthy debate does not begin with an erroneous conclusion.

best,

Heather Morrison