Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Phil, it is good to hear, if I interpret your message correctly, 
that you're not categorically opposed to the argument that 
publishing is part of the research process, and thus should be 
paid out of grants. But then I don't quite understand your 
criticism of an authorside- paid system. I immediately accept 
that authors do not want to pay. That's why I argue that the 
authorside payment should be part of the infrastructural 
provision, just as the library is. You'd get exactly the same 
answer, i.e. 'no', if you were to ask them to pay for the 
subscriptions you have in the library, or even to pay by usage of 
the journals you subscribe to. Especially out of their own 
pocket. The library, however, is paid out of their grants (the 
58% overhead), though they may not quite realise that. So, in my 
book, it would be strange to even suggest that authorside 
payments would have to come out of their personal funds. I think 
that's not what you're saying, but it's not entirely clear that 
if you don't, what the problem actually is (other than that what 
has to come out of overheads at Cornell may be higher than at 
other universities, who, as Heather Morrison pointed out, have 
also less grant money coming in and thus less to fund their 
overhead).

I'm very pleased to hear, too, that Cornell already uses low 
energy light bulbs. Since your remark about mowing lawns leads me 
to think that there might be appreciable expanses of grass at 
Cornell, could I also suggest ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) to 
heat/cool the buildings? Although, an advanced institution like 
yours probably has that, too, already.

Best wishes,

Jan Velterop

On 27 Apr 2006, at 14:30, Phil Davis wrote:

> Jan, you seem to assume that critics of a producer-pays system are
> categorically opposed to the argument that publishing is part of
> the research process, and thus should be paid out of grants or the
> author's pocket.  I am not arguing about how publishing "ought" to
> be funded.  I am simply providing evidence that authors are
> generally opposed to having to pay much (if any) to publish.  If
> citing a journal in Physics is not enough evidence, let me provide
> more:
>
> Late last summer I contacted your company (Springer) to find out
> how many authors had opted to pay the $3,000 to make their article
> OA.  Their response: 5
>
> In 2004, I polled every Cornell researcher who had published in
> Nucleic Acids Research in the past five years whether they were
> willing to pay the full costs of publishing (it was $1,500 at that
> time, now $1,900), which would allow the library to get out of
> subsidizing authors through subscription costs.  The alternative
> was for the library to pay a "membership" cost which lowered author-
> rates to $500.  None of the authors said that they were willing to
> pay the full amount but were willing to pay the reduced amount.
> $500 is comparable to the page charges levied by good society
> journals in the life sciences.
>
> Now, funding publishing on the money my institution saves through
> using low energy light bulbs is a fantastic idea, although we
> already have them.  I once argued that the money saved when
> individuals cancelled their personal subscriptions should be sent
> to the library so that it can help pay our institutional
> subscription costs.  What do you think the likelihood of this
> happening?
>
> -Phil Davis