RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

["Velterop, Jan, Springer UK" <Jan.Velterop@springer.com>]

David,

There are many things to be said about this, but I'd like to pick out
one thing you say that may easily lead to misunderstandings. You include
in costs to sustain a journal "the costs of authors writing their
papers". Presuming you're mainly talking about primary research
journals, and not journals that publish mainly commissioned review
articles, that surely is not a cost that should be taken into account.
Research authors are, in contrast to journalists or professional science
writers, *not* providing services to journals, but journals are
providing services to research authors. They need to publish in
peer-reviewed journals in order to satisfy the demands of their
profession. Publish or perish, remember?

By including "the costs of authors writing their papers" (costs not
reimbursed), you are in danger of repeating the oft-given, but
erroneous, impression that authors 'give away' their articles. Jolly
philanthropical of them, but they don't need journals if they want to
'give away'; they can just put their writings on a blog or in a
repository. The reality is that they want to publish in journals not
because they want to give away anything, but because they want to obtain
something: the professional credibility that comes with a formal
publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

If one wants journals to be able to provide that professional
credibility, then the efforts and costs those journals need to make to
do so, need to be properly funded. In an area mainly driven by readers
who clamour to see the research (a 'read-or-rot' area), subscriptions
make sense; in an area mainly driven by the need to publish (a
'publish-or-perish' area, arguably the most common in science), article
processing charges for open access publishing makes sense; and in an
area mainly driven by political or other overarching societal concerns
('fly-or-flounder'?), direct subsidies make sense.

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: 12 July 2007 23:32
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> 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