Re: Berkeley faculty statement on scholarly publishing

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

Let's not forget that both BMC and PLoS have publicly stated that their
current charges are not economically viable.  It is a mistake to assume
that these are realistic levels

Sally

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: Berkeley faculty statement on scholarly publishing

> Anthony, it's completely understandable that you publisher types are
> very worried about recent developments, but let's not forget:  the
> Cornell study assumes a per-article cost that is higher than what actual
> OA publishers are charging (Cornell assumes $2,500 as the low end, as
> compared to PLoS $1,500, BMC at a little over $600).  These are STM
> journal prices, not taking into account that many journals in the
> humanities and social sciences have likely always been more efficient,
> simply due to having a lower revenue stream.
>
> As Phil Davis has always pointed out, the conclusions on this open-data
> study can change depending on the variables.  The vast majority of
> research libraries would see cost savings if they paid all author
> charges at rates of $1,000 average or less; considering what BMC and
> PLoS actually charge, and factoring in somewhat lower costs for social
> sciences and humanities, this is another reasonable conclusion from the
> Cornell study. In other words, based on the data provided by Cornell,
> one could also conclude that open access would be less costly, even for
> research intensive institutions and assuming an author payment model.  
> Considering that some of the funding is likely to come from funding
> agencies and departments rather than libraries, the savings are likely
> to be substantial.
>
> The key to achieve the most cost savings will be to ensure that
> libraries (or institutions) do not pay exorbitant amounts.  This is
> easier to do with author payments than subscription payments.  If your
> faculty members need to publish, subsidize the author payment to the
> extent your budget can permit.  It is much easier to compare publishing
> services on a per-article basis than it is to compare value on a
> subscription basis. If PLoS is providing top quality at $1,500 per
> article, and another publisher wants twice as much to publish the same
> article - why would an institution or library agree to pay more?
>
> I sure hope that OA publishers like PLoS and BMC will be able to keep up
> with what I see as increasing demands, partially for this reason and
> partially due to the impact advantage they (and their authors) will
> enjoy, as compared to publishers that are implementing 12 month
> embargoes in reaction to the NIH policy.  Good thing there are open
> source and low-cost alternatives around, such as the Public Knowledge
> Project's Open Journal Systems.  They will be needed!
>
> Speaking of open source publishing - does anyone know if Cornell's d-pubs
> is released yet?
>
> a personal view by,
>
> Heather Morrison