RE: Sub-sidy/scription for ArXiv

["Nat Gustafson-Sundell" <n-gustafson-sundell@northwestern.edu>]

... and of course that involves a couple of assumptions. 
Whether or not the assumptions have been tested is another 
matter.

In any case, in some versions of the new model, the 
infrastructure is being supplied by lower paid, but highly 
professional, highly trained staff.  So , for example, at the 
University of Iowa, a model is developing where librarians and 
para-professionals supply all of the support and infrastructure, 
except for the editorial responsibilities.  And yes, there is 
'specific training' more and more often showing up in MLIS 
programs and out of school through conferences and primers (I 
also know of a professor/ librarian/ editor/ publisher who has 
shopped an idea to provide something like an annual workshop or 
post-MLIS certificate).  As you know, this is the same model for 
many commercial journals -- the commercial publisher supplies 
support and infrastructure, while the editors and board are 
academics.  So the difference here is that we are doing away with 
the waste.

But this is exactly why I brought up the need to question 
assumptions and make sometimes painful decisions.  This is also 
why I acknowledged that there will plenty of people who argue 
that the way it has been done is the only way it can be done. 
Whenever I've changed anything at my former companies, I 
encountered exactly the same line of reasoning (the cons are 
counted twice and the pros barely at all, then any little thing 
that is problematic is magnified a thousandfold)-- and while I 
know there's a lot of value mixed in, often there is something 
else.  One could easily take your version of Day's argument and 
turn it on his head in consideration of all of the extra value 
attained.  For the editors and board, who in many cases would 
have been doing this work anyway, nothing changes, but if more 
academics do get involved, they learn a lot more about scholarly 
communication issues, which are vital to them, network more with 
peers on a different ground, perhaps improve communication, 
hopefully gain new skills (everyone should be at least web 2.0 
proficient, no matter who they are), etc.  {old social networking 
studies have shown that the people interacting with the most and 
most different kinds of people produce the most ideas.} I have 
pointed out in a separate thread that grad students stand to 
benefit enormously.  So maybe we are actually paying the higher 
opportunity cost with the old model?  I could go on, but I won't 
belabor the point.

Also, I would just like to acknowledge that I think we do need 
the wise professionals.  There's always the issue that the person 
doing the job thinks they can do it better than everyone else and 
their way is the only way, but sometimes, those people are right 
(while somebody else really could do the job, something is lost). 
Can much of their work be done by others ? How much?  I don't 
want to go down this path for the purpose of this memo, but it 
seems we are begging for an analysis involving a proper skills 
inventory (and you'll recall I started out in the context of a 
collaborative platform, but I'll leave aside the issue of 
reducing redundancies by looking for efficiencies through 
consolidation).  Let's just say then that we should be looking 
for opportunities to hybridize (at the least).  The point is that 
the innovation, which we desperately, desperately need, is 
largely coming from the folks working on the new model..


-Nat

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:19 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Sub-sidy/scription for ArXiv

One clear inefficiency that affects many OA journals that are
published using mainly faculty volunteer labor was pointed out
long ago by economist Colin Day, former director of the presses
at Michigan and Hong Kong, who wisely observed that high paid,
untrained faculty were doing jobs that lower paid, professionally
trained publishing staff could do better--not to mention the
opportunity costs involved in their using time to do work
inefficiently that could be put to more productive use in their
doing the research for which they were specifically trained. This
is one of the hidden costs of OA journal publishing not done by
professional publishers that is rarely calculated in the
comparisons with journal publishing as performed by commercial
publishers or university presses.

Sandy Thatcher


>Thanks for the pointer.  I left university presses largely aside
>to avoid writing extra paragraphs ... but while they have been
>shown often enough to be a superior value compared to most
>commercial publishers based on subscription price and a variety
>of denominators,, I admit I was pretty much assuming that most
>university presses might not be as efficient in operation as
>possible, so I was thinking they wouldn't serve the purposes I
>was describing.
>
>My assumption has been that there is a new model in development
>which is almost revolutionarily slimmer than the variety of
>instances of the old model, with far fewer professionals or staff
>dedicated solely to publishing work.  These "new model
>publishers" might be showing that some extra layers of fat aren't
>always needed.  This is why I originally said the "world will
>need to change for lots of people, and not necessarily in good
>ways (for them)..." I first mentioned this in the context of
>overhead for a university press (as described by Patrick
>Alexander).
>
>With regard to my sci fi version of arXiv, I was arguing that new
>model publishers can become even more efficient, depending on
>whether collaboration happens and whether such collaboration
>leads to further efficiency.  My experience working for both a
>new model journal and a commercial online magazine led me to see
>just how much more cleanly a new publisher can run if it starts
>(which may be key) *without* most of the baggage.  This is why I
>said this kind of change might not be good for some -- I was
>thinking that existing presses would need to question a lot of
>their assumptions (and salaries) or eventually they could be
>shown to be inefficient and unadaptable as more and more
>yardstick new model journals/ publishers prove their concept.
>Of course, there seem to be some incredibly efficient university
>presses already around that have already slim operations and
>simply take advantage of new opportunities when they come up. My
>generalizations for the sake of brevity can only go so far.  No
>doubt there will continue to be many models for some time, with
>some of my so-called new model publishers failing and some
>commercial presses with very high prices and costs continuing
>(for too long, as Stevan pointed out), with everything in
>between.
>
>More to your comment though:  I would be very interested to see a
>good comparison of the operations (and p&ls) of university
>presses (or all kinds of presses), identifying a 'best in class'
>model or models.  Maybe the $500 per peer review from the APS is
>the best anyone can do.  Maybe it isn't.  I think there was a
>separate thread claiming a much higher peer review provision cost
>as determined by some other publisher; how could the numbers be
>so different? ... (probably mostly the formula, but also maybe
>some of the operations) ...  Are all of their other costs the
>best achievable? Should they be used as a yardstick?  I'm worried
>that new model publishers have not yet started carrying enough
>weight to prove they can carry enough weight -- I'd be curious to
>also see a study discussing such presses and what they have
>accomplished so far in the context of how existing university
>presses operate and how they have sustained operations over a
>longer term (my thinking is that some fat is needed to keep out
>the cold -- but what is the 'ideal' weight? How do we define
>obese?).  Maybe these studies exist; after all, we're talking
>about a multi-billion dollar industry -- this hasn't been
>something I've searched, but will now when I have some time, so
>thanks again for the lead.
>
>-Nat