RE: ArXiv Grows Up, Adopts Subscription-like Model

[David Prosser <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Is that true, Sandy?  Can we have a reference please?

Tenopir and King back in 2004 suggested that 'manuscript receipt 
processing, disposition decision-making, identifying reviewers or 
referees and review processing' constituted 26% of the direct 
costs of producing an article (which they estimated at $1700 on 
average).

http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/26.html

Of course, costs may have shifted in the years since then. 
Which is why a reference would be welcome.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 29 January 2010 01:24
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: ArXiv Grows Up, Adopts Subscription-like Model

Uh, it's the peer review that is the most expensive part of the 
whole process, and arXiv is not in the business of peer 
reviewing.

>What really struck me about the arXiv business model is the 
>phenomenal cost-effectiveness of arXiv.
>
>At under $7 per article (that's the total cost!), arXiv manages
>all of the technical aspects of disseminating scholarly articles
>-including storage, sustaining a heavily used system, developing
>the search interface, and even working with publishers so that
>arXiv also works as a submission platform for some journals.
>
>wow!
>
>Heather Morrison, MLIS
>The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
>http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com