Re: cost of peer review & electronic distribution of scholarly journals

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

One might add, in response to Dr. Gadagkar's concern, that there 
is the added benefit of Green OA for teaching in that instructors 
can point their students to the URLs for self-archived papers as 
class assignments at no cost to the students. Even if the papers 
thus made available for free are not the final versions as 
published, but have been fully peer reviewed, they should serve 
the needs of students perfectly well in gaining new knowledge. (I 
can hardly believe that I am making an argument on behalf of 
Green OA, but I guess I am. Maybe I have spent too much time 
reading Stevan's posts.)

Sancy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


>          ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
>
>On Thu, 22 May 2008, N. Miradon wrote:
>
>>The current issue of Nature has correspondence from Dr 
>>Raghavendra Gadagkar. The abstract of his letter (available at 
>>[1]) compares and contrasts 'publish for free and pay to read' 
>>with 'pay to publish and read for free'. To read the letter in 
>>full will cost you USD 18.
>>
>>N Miradon
>>
>>[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453450c.html
>>Nature 453, 450 (22 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/453450c; Published online 21 May
>>2008
>
>Here is the part you can read for free:
>
>Open-access more harm than good in developing world
>          Raghavendra Gadagkar
>          Centre for Ecological Sciences,
>          Indian Institute of Science,
>          Bangalore 560012, India
>
>"The traditional 'publish for free and pay to read' business 
>model adopted by publishers of academic journals can lead to 
>disparity in access to scholarly literature, exacerbated by 
>rising journal costs and shrinking library budgets. However, 
>although the 'pay to publish and read for free' business model 
>of open-access publishing has helped to create a level playing 
>field for readers, it does more harm than good in the developing 
>world..."
>
>It is easy to guess what else the letter says: That at the 
>prices currently charged by those Gold OA publishers that charge 
>for Gold OA publishing today, it is unaffordable to most 
>researchers as well as to their institutions and funders in 
>India and elsewhere in the Developing World.
>
>This is a valid concern, even in view of the usual reply (which 
>is that many Gold OA journals do not charge a fee, and 
>exceptions are made by those that do charge a fee, for those who 
>cannot afford to pay it). The concern is that current Gold OA 
>fees would not scale equitably if they became universal.
>
>However, the overall concern is misplaced. The implication is 
>that whereas the user-access-denial arising from the the 
>unaffordability of subscription fees (user-institution pays) is 
>bad, the author-publication-denial arising from the 
>unaffordability of Gold OA publishing fees (author-institution 
>pays) would be worse.
>
>But this leaves out Green OA self-archiving, and the Green OA 
>self-archiving mandates that are now growing worldwide.
>
>Not only does Green OA cost next to nothing to provide, but once 
>it becomes universal, if it ever does go on to generate 
>universal subscription cancellations too -- making the 
>subscription model of publishing cost recovery unsustainable -- 
>universal Green OA will also by the very same token generate the 
>release of the annual user-institution cancellation fees to pay 
>the costs of publishing on the Gold OA (author-institution pays) 
>cost-recovery model. 
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399w 
>e152.htm

[SNIP]