Re: FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Sally has her examples wrong, but her conclusions are correct. 
David has his examples right, but his conclusions are incorrect. 
What is being overlooked is that the value-added function of 
publishing is to SUPPRESS production through selectivity, not to 
encourage it.  Google "david goodman" (464,000 pages returned) 
and ask what happens when the editorial function has an economic 
incentive to approve more materials, not fewer.  ("joe esposito" 
returns fewer pages:  More Gold, Less Dross!)  The Web is not an 
encyclopedia or a substitute for a publishing enterprise; it is a 
pile of manure, through which one searches, holding one's nose, 
to find the pony. That is why Google is worth so much, because it 
looks for the pony and the Web stinks.

Open Access will significantly increase the cost of scholarly 
communications by creating incentives for production, when what 
is needed are filters for selection.  You can't change one cog in 
the machine without having the machine go off in an unintended 
direction.  Think of the savings and loan scandal of a few years 
ago, the most apposite precedent for OA publishing that there is: 
one change in a vast body of linked laws and it almost bankrupted 
the nation.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing

> Surely by now it should be obvious that there is no good 
> pricing model. I have yet to see one that was not unfair to 
> some group of libraries. There is a possibility that a system 
> could be devised that offers a choice of models to the 
> library--and in fact one has the option from some providers, 
> such a OCLC, to purchase some databases either at a flat rate 
> or by the search;  even then, the relative pricing of the two 
> access routes will be contentious.
>
> Fortunately, this is problem only for databases and other 
> secondary services. As all readers of this list must know, 
> there is a universally fair pricing model for journals, that of 
> open access journals. More precisely, it is fair to 
> universities, although not necessarily to their libraries, for 
> it apportions charges according to the amount of research funds 
> available. Just as the cost for research staff depends directly 
> on the research funding, just as the cost of research supplies 
> depends on the research funding, so will the cost of publishing 
> the results.
>
> Just as no university wishes to overpay for research supplies, 
> they will not want to overpay for research publication costs. 
> The expense of research supplies is determined by a free 
> market, and so will be the expense for research publishing.
>
> Sally's examples are just plain wrong. I have never known an 
> institution that does not bargain aggressively for telephone 
> service.The cost of such service has gone down dramatically, as 
> new and more efficient technology has entered the market-- to a 
> considerable extent, from other than the traditional providers. 
> I have never known an organization of any sort that does not 
> strenuously promote the efficient use of heating and lighting; 
> most universities find it worthwhile to pay technical staff to 
> optimize their facilities. Not just large institutions but 
> individual households try to deal with the cost of utilities 
> efficiently, so the concept should not be unfamiliar.
>
> I've said this before. Sally has not yet learned it, just as 
> the publishers in general have not yet learned it. At least 
> they are beginning to experiment. It is a good thing they do: 
> if they do not provide a cost-efficient service, they, just as 
> other outmoded communications services, will be replaced by 
> more efficient alternatives.
>
> It is in this light that we look on Sally's quoted costs for 
> peer review.  If her figures are right, it is the most 
> expensive part of journal publishing, because the per-article 
> OA charges of even expensive commercial publishers is less than 
> double her figures. It can be done for less: the per -article 
> cost of publishing Physical Review is less than $1500 -- the 
> exact amount depends upon whom you ask--and the price of 
> Physical Review to libraries declines a little most years (the 
> absolute price, not even adjusted for inflation). The quality 
> of their peer review does not seem to suffer.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
> Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:29 pm
> Subject: Re: FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing
> To: Liblicense <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
>
> > Usage-based pricing only discourages use at a certain level.
> >
> > Do we refrain from using telephones?  Electricity?  Water?  Yet
> > many of us pay for these, at least in part, on a usage basis.
> > It's all a matter of pricing level, isn't it?
> >
> > The trick would be to work out a pricing model which, in total,
> > produced the same amount of money (give or take) to producers,
> > but distributed its payment more fairly among users.  Of course,
> > heavy users who paid more would hate it - low users who paid less
> > would love it.  And that may, in fact, be the main obstacle!
> >
> > Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> > Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
> > Website:  www.alpsp.org