Re: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

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

I appreciate that David is trying to get the facts straight (and as far as I
can see, he does), but I think it could be misleading to say "that a third
of society-published journals surveyed made a loss--they were being
sponsored by their societies."  In some instances it is not accurate to call
this a "loss."  For some societies free access to a journal or other
publications is a benefit of membership.  Thus the journal is more
accurately classed as a service than a formal publication.  The staff
responsible for creating the journal is often charged with marketing it to
non-members, including academic libraries.  This is quite a challenge, as
this market is secondary (the primary market already gets the journal for
free as a benefit of membership).  If I were the publisher of such a
journal, I would take umbrage at being accused of operating the journal at a
loss.

Not everything has to pay for itself, whether it is a subscription product,
an OA journal, or (say) a day-care center.  Self-sustaining enterprises,
whether for-profit or not-for-profit, are great things, but they do not
represent the entire range of a society's organizational needs.  I have
profound skepticism about a large part of the promises of the OA movement,
but I really don't see why anyone would object to having a publication be
"subsidized" in some way (and that includes toll-access socieity
publications, too).  Surely a professional society has the right to spend
its money in any lawful way it deems fit.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)


> Sally
>
> Yes, costs have to be covered irrespective of the access model.
> Yes, some open access journals rely to some extent on sponsorship
> to cover the costs, but then so do some subscription-based
> journals.  For example, you will recall the survey that you
> commissioned for ALPSP that showed that a third of
> society-published journals surveyed made a loss - they were being
> sponsored by their societies.
>
> And yes, some open access journals are supported indirectly, with
> institutions picking-up some or all of the costs of time, office
> accommodation and services, and computing resources, etc.  In
> exactly the same way as for some subscription-based journals some
> or all of these costs are picked-up by the institutions.  (Of
> course, some journals pay for these costs - both
> subscription-based and open access.)
>
> As for opportunity costs, let's admit that the vast majority of
> scholarly journals rely on these 'hidden' costs.  From the
> 'costs' of authors writing their papers, to the 'costs' of
> referees reviewing papers (mostly for free), to the 'costs' of
> Editors (and I know that in some fields some Editors are paid
> well, but in others they go either unpaid or receive honoraria
> far below their 'hourly rate').  I'm not sure why you consider
> these costs important for open access journals but not for
> journals with other access models.
>
> So, we have a variety of revenue streams - for both
> subscription-based and open access journals - and a variety of
> subsidy-levels through the academic community picking-up
> opportunity costs and what might be called overhead costs -
> again, both for subscription-based and open access journals.  We
> appear to be creating a false dichotomy (as with the 'barrier to
> authors' argument) that does not reflect the true spectrum that
> actually cuts across access models.
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
> http://www.sparceurope.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris
> (Morris
> Associates)
> Sent: 10 July 2007 21:06
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)
>
> Open Access journals that don't charge authors (and some that do)
> are being paid for somewhere else.  It may be explicit, as with
> the Moore Foundation sponsorship for PLoS or that of Ishikawa for
> Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.  Or it may
> be implicit, where the editor's parent organization is covering
> the costs of time (salaries and associated costs), office
> accommodation and services, and computing resources.  Some
> naively (in my view) argue that these costs do not exist since
> the people, office and computer were there anyway - but what
> about opportunity cost?  They could all be doing other things.
>
> I don't think anyone has compared the fortunes and reputation of
> those OA journals that do and don't charge authors.  It would be
> interesting to see whether there is, in fact, any difference...
>
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk