[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: "Armbruster, Chris" <Chris.Armbruster@EUI.eu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:52:13 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Yes, you are right about counting articles instead of journal titles. An interesting further question is how to factor in the book 'volume' of publishing? >From the same large commercial publisher that has invested in >open access I have heard the expectation that OA journal >publishing will - within the decade - a) amount to no more than 10% of the volume (i.e. remain a niche product for research funders willing to pony up the money) and/or b) that it will become a major business model with about 30% of market share in journal publishing. Certainly, the launch of 'megajournals' signals that most publishers do not want to miss out if b) happens. Only, even if b) happens, then more than half the journal market would still based on subscriptions, plus all the books.... Best, Chris ________________________________________ From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] Sent: 02 November 2011 02:29 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?" Chris, I do believe that the future holds all of your alternatives but a), I cannot imagine that subscription will survive as the major business model. I does, of course, depend on how you count. You yourself suggest setting a threshold of 25 % of journals as an indicator of whether oa publishing has become a large-scale business model. But is the number of journals or publishers the interesting number? In my opinion, no. The interesting number is the number of articles, which has a rather skewed distribution between journals. And the largest journal in terms of articles, is oa - PLoS ONE. With the number of prospective mega-journals that recently have launched you'd need less than 1 % of journals to contain more than 25 % of all articles - if they all succeed and grow to the same size as PLoS ONE. Your alternative d) seems very interesting, with mega-journals the journal isn't a navigational aid anymore. (Actually, it isn't a journal anymore, either - it is a database or repository of articles.) If all oa content is published with a CC BY license, third parties - including present publishers - can establish navigational and quality indicating services on top of the journals. The only sure answer is that a lot will happen in the coming three to five years - probably. :-) Best, Jan Erik Frantsvag Open Access adviser The University Library of Tromso e-mail email@example.com http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/ http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/ http://www2.uit.no/ansatte/jan.e.frantsvag Publications: http://tinyurl.com/33dwnun -----Opprinnelig melding----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org via Armbruster, Chris Date: 1. november 2011 01:18 Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?" To date, the subscription model seems alive and well and still in the best interest of many publishers, societies and libraries. We are still waiting for evidence that libraries (and their institutions) are willing to substantially reduce and/or forego the subscription-based model. On the part of the libraries, one would like to hear more about how they envision their (future) role if they cancel subscriptions and move money to open access publishing. Most large publishers have set up open access publishing operations, and although some of them and many societies they are publishing for, might hope that open access publishing remains limited, it would seem up to the buyers (libraries/institutions) to prove that open access publishing is not just an additional revenue stream (provided by funders on behalf of authors), but the new/desired standard. What evidence do we have? How much APCs are 'new' money and how much are 'converted' library funds? Even if open access publishing would become a large-scale business model (a threshold could be set, e.g. 25% of journals with JIF or in Ulrich's), and particularly if it was based on models such as PLoS One, PMC or SSRN, then there would be some scope for new subscription-based models to help readers navigate. Content curation at SSRN, as subscription-based service, has already been mentioned. More will follow. The interesting question would seem to be how the subscription-based model will evolve... a)as main business model, that as growth slows (or even shrinks somewhat?) is supplemented by article-processing charges as new stream of income? b)as business model for premium content (high rejection rate, large editorial contribution, mag features etc.) while the bulk of the scientific record is published in open access (at USD/EUR/GBP 1000-2000)? c)as bifurcated model, with big deals for institutions, and new models (flatrate, 99c PPV) that reach more and new readers (hospitals, industry) through the syndication of content and its curation? d)as new business model for sorting through the large mass of open access content and delivering to users what they are looking for? Chris Armbruster