Re: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

This discussion is getting somewhere. The issue of paying for the
literature via subscriptions or article charges reminds me of a -- no
doubt apocryphal -- story about the philosopher Wittgenstein, who one time
asked a friend "Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men
to assume that the sun went round the earth, rather than that the earth
was rotating?" His friend said, "Well, obviously, because it looks as if
the sun is going round the earth." To which the philosopher replied,
"Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was
rotating?"

It seems that the principle of paying for the literature from research
overheads is not contested; just the practicalities. Phil's scenes from
the Comedia Academia make a few very good points. But does the principle
of paying from what's now taken as overheads necessarily imply the
decision mechanisms he mets en scene? Would it not be possible to reduce
overheads (in Cornell's case from, say, 58% to 56% of the grant; the
reduction could eventually come from what now goes into the library
budget, no?), and then let the researcher decide where to publish? The
best way to approach research literature is still to regard publishing as
integral to doing research and thus the cost of publishing as integral to
the cost of doing research. If research is done for the common good, then
why not publishing?

Btw, Phil, are there scenes like you sketch with regard to the purchase of
reagents or laboratory glassware and the like as well?

Jan Velterop

PS. Phil, I am truly pleased with Cornell cooling its campus using a heat
exchange system with the water in Cayuga Lake, and I'm glad you told me
about it. All too often it looks, from a European vantage point, as if
Americans are as aware of the need for energy conservation as the cats I
mentioned in an earlier posting are aware of the cost of catfood. This is
an exemplary example (sorry for the tautology) of the contrary and I can
only hope measures like this will not remain limited to centres of
intellectual excellence such as Cornell. I'll mention the example of
Cornell's advanced energy policies whenever and wherever appropriate.


On 28 Apr 2006, at 16:34, Phil Davis wrote:


> If grants are skimmed to support infrastructure costs (like
> lights and mowing the lawn), then why couldn't authors'
> publication costs be paid out of these same infrastructure
> costs?  This is a very good question, and it makes logical
> sense in the same way that the library is part of the
> university's infrastructure and uses some of its money to pay
> subscription costs.  To this, I see a real governance issue:
>
> Imagine that each institution set up a special fund to pay
> these author costs.  In fact, SPARC has proposed the creation
> of such a fund, and has called it a "Provost's Fund".  Let's
> discuss who is going to manage this fund?
>
> In our first scenario, lets leave it unmanaged.  The author
> simply submits his/her invoices and the fees are paid.
> Without anyone managing this account, this would akin to
> putting a lot of cash out on a table and ringing a dinner bell.
> In realistic terms, it would be akin to the librarian
> purchasing any and all requests for material that came to his
> inbox.  Talk about potential for abuse!
>
> In our second scenario, lets put in a management board of
> faculty who will decide who gets their author charges funded.
> >
> SCENE 1:
> A request from a molecular biologist comes in for $1,500 bill to
> pay for an article accepted in PLoS.  The life scientists on the
> board say "ok", the physicist on the board, says, "why don't you
> just post it on arXiv?"  The humanist says, "why does it cost so
> much to publish?"  After much debate, the board funds this article.
>
> SCENE 2:
> A request from a mathematician comes in with a $3,000 bill to pay
> for an article accepted in a Springer journal.  The life scientists
> says, "why so much money?  PLoS is only half as expensive!  Why not
> publish in a less-expensive journal?"  The physicists says, "why
> don't you just post it on the arXiv?"  The humanist says, "why does
> it cost so much to publish?"  The request is denied.  The
> mathematician appeals to his department, his dean and the provost.
> Under pressure, the board reverses their decision and funds this
> article.
>  
> INTERMISSION
> After six months of weekly meetings, the board discovers that they
> have run out of money.  They appeal the Provost for more cash.
> More money is put in the Provost's Fund but with a stern warning
> that the board needs to be more stringent.  After all, the Provost
> is also being asked to fund a new nanotechology building and build
> a new sports stadium.
>
> SCENE 3
> A request comes from medical researcher that got an article
> accepted in PNAS.  She is really excited as she is an assistant
> professor and this article will make her career.  She is only
> asking for $1,000, and the life scientist thinks this is a great
> deal.  The humanist still doesn't understand why it costs so much
> to publish.  The physicist says, "why pay the money at all.  PNAS
> is a hybrid subscription/OA journal.  In 6-months, this article
> will be free anyway!"  The board rejects this request, agreeing
> with the physicist, and two-months later, they are involved with a
> discrimination lawsuit.
>
> While I have made this play a little more exciting than in real
> life (theatre is like that), setting up funds to pay author-side
> publishing costs runs straight into the horns of a dilemma.  Run
> without any governance, this fund iis open to exploitation and
> abuse.  Try to manage such a fund and you get involved in political
> and ideological disputes that, at heart, challenges academic freedom.
>
> --Phil Davis
>
>
> Jan, P.S. You'd be glad to hear that we cool our university campus
> using a heat exchange system with the water in Cayuga Lake.
> http://www.utilities.cornell.edu/utl_lscfte_howlscworks.html