RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

David

I know you don't share the illusion that OA journals are free or very cheap
to run - but some others do!  I was merely trying to remind readers that
this is not the case;  you're quite right that 'invisible' sponsorship can
equally apply to unprofitable subscription journals, but I believe the
parent institutions are usually aware of this.

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[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