[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment
- From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:35:20 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I suggest that smaller institutions pay much more per article usage (though they need much of the same research), than larger research institutions and larger institutions may have other reasons to support a system that costs them slightly more-- in order to increase exposure to research as a public good. Davis and Stern wrote on liblicense-l: Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment in an Open Access Model, by Philip Davis and David Stern April 14, 2005 "Is it cheaper in an Open Access producer-pays model to take an institutional membership over paying per article published? The results of this analysis of two research institutions suggests that institutionscould save money if they paid by the article." And concluded: "The question of who will subsidize Open Access producer-pays publishing is significant if libraries cannot justify their memberships on financial grounds. This will be especially true for smaller institutions that publish few (if any) articles. Unlike the subscription model, there is little risk of losing access if a membership is not renewed. Subvention from foundations and other sources may be necessary to support the producer-pays model" *** COMMENT: This analysis ignores that under the current model and a proposed author pays model smaller institutions- in terms of use per article of the research literatures, subsidize cost per use at larger institutions like Yale and Cornell. Smaller institutions generally pay more per use than larger institutions covering the same field. Payment by the article is NOT equal payment in an "author or institution pays" system. Phil's own research examining usage of ACS journals/articles suggests a massive disparity between the usage at a Cornell and at UNC Charlotte. SOME publisher's try to make some adjustment for this disparity with various forms of differential pricing (which is why my Elsevier Science Direct contract is less expensive than that of larger institutions while providing similar coverage). However the basic disparity in cost is still very large on a per use basis. This is true in both paper and e-based systems for every comparable usage measure I've seen to date. My own institution's usage data is posted at : http://library.uncc.edu/display/?dept=technical&format=open&page=1839 There is another question that is hovering around that has not been addressed. Yale, and Cornell, with larger investments in research, and arguably more cited research than many smaller institutions may have a moral reason to be willing to pay more per "article" to support open access. In fact, there is a very good argument to be made that shifting the cost of publishing to the institutions that publish and also use the system the most means that smaller institutions with less publications and less use of the system will have greater access, a good that Yale and Cornell might consciously determine is a significant public good. The researcher at UNC Charlotte, to be productive and contribute to a particular field MUST have access to the same articles that a researcher at Cornell or Yale has, ultimately, and this has led to smaller institutions spending much higher portions of their overall budgets for research journals than larger institutions. If a subscription to Brain Research is necessary at a smaller institution, it would take a larger percentage of that budget than it does Yale's. So Yale and Cornell and by extension all large research operations have to make a value decision, not just a monetary decision. And that value decision, access to the most important research is a social good, not just a matter of dollars and cents to a single research university's library. Open access, however it is achieved, is such a powerful good as shown by usage data and citation analysis as Harnad et. al. have shown repeatedly, how can a world leading institution continue to argue for hiding its research behind prohibitively expensive toll barriers? Chuck Hamaker Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223 phone 704 687-2825
- Prev by Date: RE: "Life After NIH"--additional data
- Next by Date: Re: Revision to Physical Review B data
- Previous by thread: Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment
- Next by thread: Re: Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment
- Index(es):