Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: [GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 09:07:00 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing from david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk
      • This Message

--089e0160ca3e782efe04dbf842af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>
 wrote:

Stevan makes a central assumption that is misleading....  It is certainly
> true that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both subscriptions and
> publication fees...  But Stevan implies that this is for the same content.
>  With the exception of some hybrid OA papers (which are in the minority)
> this is not the case.... OA is taking thousands of papers out of the
> subscription model and therefore reducing price pressures on 
subscriptions.
>  Put simply, if these OA papers had been published in subscription 
journals
> then subscription prices would have been higher.  (This is obvious if you
> think what would have happened if those 190k OA papers had been in
> subscription journals - do we think that the publishers would have just
> absorbed the costs and accepted reduced profits/surpluses?) So, even in a
> transition period it is clear that there are cost savings in OA Gold
> publishing....
>

Here (as in his advice to authors to worry about the double-talk hedging
the publisher's statement that "Immediate posting and dissemination of
accepted author manuscripts is allowed to personal websites, to
institutional repositories, or to arXiv") I think David Prosser is quite
simply wrong.

"190K Gold OA" articles sounds like a lot, but as we know 
""These are
averages across many different forms of Gold OA: (i) subsidy or
subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), (ii) hybrid subscription/Gold
OA, (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or next to no peer review)."

It is a safe bet that (apart from the hybrid Gold minority) those 190K
articles are not articles from the must-see journals to which most
institutions have been reduced by the un-affordability of subscriptions.
Those are the subscription journals at the heart of the serials crisis.
They are the ones that institutions must keep buying in for their users,
regardless of how many papers are being published as Gold OA in other
journals. They can only be cancelled when their content is accessible by
other means. (And it is that other means on which I think all efforts
should be focussed.)

Nor is it clear why David imagines that those must-see journals would lower
their subscription prices because 190K articles published in other journals
happen to be Gold OA.

The double-payment is not to the same publisher (except in the case of
hybrid Gold, in which case it is also double-dipping): The institution
continues to pay, undiminished, for the must-see subscription journals it
can afford to buy in, and, on top of that, the institution's authors pay
for whatever Gold they are foolish enough to pay-to-publish, instead of
providing cost-free Green *(if their motivation was just to provide OA*).
(I hope David will not reply "but they are paying for it with RCUK funds,
not subscription funds!": Payment to publishers -- not necessarily the 
same
one -- is doubled no matter whose pocket it is being poached from, as long
as subscriptions still have to be paid: that's what "double-payment" 
means.
The payers and payees may both differ, but any Gold payment is over and
what is already being paid via subscriptions.)

Now what is really behind all of this? Two motivations, one innocent but
naive (David's, for subscription price reductions, and a migration of
authors from subscription to Gold journals), the other not so innocent, and
certainly not naive (publishers', to preserve current revenue streams, come
what may, via pricing strategy and embargoes). It is greatly in the
interest of publishers and their current revenue streams -- whether they
are subscription, pure-Gold, hybrid-Gold or junk-Gold publishers -- to have
the research world waste yet another decade inching toward Gold (on
publishers' terms and timetable) instead of first mandating cost-free Green
universally.

And inching it is, if you look at the actual Gold OA proportions and growth
rate, especially among the must-have journals indexed by Thomson-Reuters
ISI.

An update of Gold proportions and growth rates will be published soon, but
this older one from Springer is still pretty much on-target:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Bjorkspring.png

And I've never said "we should not discuss Gold OA at all until we have
100% Green OA."

I have consistently been saying that "we should not discuss [or pay for]
Gold OA at all *until we have first mandated Green OA*."

Apologies to those who are not interested in the details, but they are
all-important, when it comes to the question of how to invest our time and
money (and hopes) regarding Green and Gold.

The good news is that when it comes to rights-agreements from publishers
that state "*Immediate posting and dissemination of accepted author
manuscripts is allowed to personal websites, to institutional repositories,
or to arXiv*" we can (and should) all ignore the hedging details and go
ahead and provide un-embargoed Green OA immediately.

Stevan Harnad

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:37 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>
 wrote:

> I'm sorry Stevan, but [Elsevier] have not answered all the questions in a
> single sentence - they have attached a large number of conditions to that
> sentence.  The full answer only comes from reading the entire policy.  We
> may not like the conditions, may believe that they are gibberish and even
> unenforceable (although that's easy for Stevan and me to say as we will
> never be on the receiving end of the enforcement), but let's not try to
> pretend that they don't exist.
>

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>wrote:

>     Stevan has been consistent over the years in his message that we
> should not discuss Gold OA at all until we have 100% Green OA.  And yet
> some of us still insist on doing so!
>
> My point was to highlight a particular data point for 2012.  Are there
> quibbles? Of course.  Does it give us the whole picture?  Of course not.
>  But for those interested in the transition mechanism it is, as I say, a
> data point.
>
> But Steven makes a central assumption that is misleading - his point 6.
>  It is certainly true that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both
> subscriptions and publication fees (where such fees exist).  But Steven
> implies that this is for the same content.  With the exception of some
> hybrid OA papers (which are in the minority) this is not the case.  One
> paper published in an OA journal is, literally, one less paper in a
> subscription journal.   All the librarians on the list know that one of 
the
> justifications for subscription and big deal price rises is increasing
> volume of content - either within current journals or through the launch 
of
> new journals.
>
> Naturally, there is not a simple one-to-one relationship between volume
> increase and price increase, but there is a strong relationship.  OA is
> taking thousands of papers out of the subscription model and therefore
> reducing price pressures on subscriptions.  Put simply, if these OA papers
> had been published in subscription journals then subscription prices would
> have been higher.  This is substitution, not addition.  (This is obvious 
if
> you think what would have happened if those 190k OA papers had been in
> subscription journals - do we think that the publishers would have just
> absorbed the costs and accepted reduced profits/surpluses?)
>

On 4 May 2013, at 14:39, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> Comparing the average price per article of Gold OA today with the average
> s=
> ubscription publisher revenue per article today is uninformative and
> mislea=
> ding.
>
> 1. These are averages across many different forms of Gold OA: (i) subsidy-
> =
> or subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), (ii) hybrid
> subscription/Gol=
> d OA, (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or next to no peer 
review).
>
> 2. They are averages across all journal qualities.
>
> 3. They are averages calculated at a time when subscriptions are still in
> t=
> he vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles are
> ac=
> cessible in some other way.
>
> 4. Hence not only do the (arbitrary) asking prices for Gold vary widely,
> bu=
> t they vary widely in the quality and service they deliver.
>
> 5. Subscription journals vary too, but it is not at all clear (and indeed
> v=
> ery unlikely) that the Gold subset today matches their quality
> distribution=
> .
>
> 6. While un-cancellable subscriptions still prevail, Gold OA is just a
> supp=
> lement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by institutions
> (subscr=
> iptions + Gold) and even double-dipping by publishers (for hybrid Gold).
>
> 7. The missing factor in all of this is the potential of mandatory Green
> OA=
> to first provide OA at no extra cost, and once it reaches 100% globally, 
t=
> o make journals cancellable, so they are forced to cut costs by downsizing
> =
> to peer-review alone.
>
> 8. Post-Green Gold OA will then be provided at a fair, sustainable price,
> p=
> aid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the institutional
> subscripti=
> on cancellation savings.
>
> None of this can be calculated on the basis of averaging the price per
> arti=
> cle of Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost will be
> su=
> bstantially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for
> subscr=
> iptions today, pre-Green.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>

--089e0160ca3e782efe04dbf842af
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, David Prosser=A0<span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk" 
target=3D"_blank">david.prosser=
 AT 
rluk.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>=A0wrote:<div><br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><span 
style=3D"border-collapse:separate=
;font-family:Helvetica"><span 
style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div style=
=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><span 
style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div sty=
le=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word=
"><span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-wo=
rd"><span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-=
word"><span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:brea=
k-word">
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word=
"><span style=3D"border-collapse:separate"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-wo=
rd"><div>Stevan makes a central assumption that is misleading.... 
=A0It is =
certainly true that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both subscript=
ions and publication fees... =A0But Stevan implies that this is for the sam=
e content. =A0With the exception of some hybrid OA papers (which are in the=
 minority) this is not the case....=A0OA is taking thousands of papers out =
of the subscription model and therefore reducing price pressures on subscri=
ptions. =A0Put simply, if these OA papers had been published in subscriptio=
n journals then subscription prices would have been higher. =A0(This is obv=
ious if you think what would have happened if those 190k OA papers had been=
 in subscription journals - do we think that the publishers would have just=
 absorbed the costs and accepted reduced profits/surpluses?)=A0So, even in =
a transition period it is clear that there are cost savings in OA Gold publ=
ishing....</div>
</div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></sp=
an></div></span></div></span></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
Here (as in his advice to authors to worry about the double-talk hedging th=
e publisher&#39;s statement that=A0&quot;Immediate posting and 
disseminatio=
n of accepted author manuscripts is allowed to personal websites, to instit=
utional repositories, or to arXiv&quot;) I think David Prosser is quite 
sim=
ply wrong.</div>
<div><br></div><div>&quot;190K Gold OA&quot; 
articles sounds like a lot, bu=
t as we know &quot;&quot;These are averages across many different forms 
of =
Gold OA: (i) subsidy=A0or subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), (ii) =
hybrid subscription/Gold OA, (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or n=
ext to no peer review).&quot;</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is a safe bet that (apart from 
the hybrid Gold minor=
ity) those 190K articles are not articles from the must-see journals to whi=
ch most institutions have been reduced by the un-affordability of subscript=
ions. Those are the subscription journals at the heart of the serials crisi=
s. They are the ones that institutions must keep buying in for their users,=
 regardless of how many papers are being published as Gold OA in other jour=
nals. They can only be cancelled when their content is accessible by other =
means. (And it is that other means on which I think all efforts should be f=
ocussed.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Nor is it clear why David imagines 
that those must-see =
journals would lower their subscription prices because 190K articles publis=
hed in other journals happen to be Gold 
OA.</div><div><br></div><div>The do=
uble-payment is not to the same publisher (except in the case of hybrid Gol=
d, in which case it is also double-dipping): The institution continues to p=
ay, undiminished, for the must-see subscription journals it can afford to b=
uy in, and, on top of that, the institution&#39;s authors pay for whatever 
=
Gold they are foolish enough to pay-to-publish, instead of providing cost-f=
ree Green <i>(if their motivation was just to provide OA</i>). (I 
hope Davi=
d will not reply &quot;but they are paying for it with RCUK funds, not 
subs=
cription funds!&quot;: Payment to publishers -- not necessarily the same 
on=
e -- is doubled no matter whose pocket it is being poached from, as long as=
 subscriptions still have to be paid: that&#39;s what 
&quot;double-payment&=
quot; means. The payers and payees may both differ, but any Gold payment is=
 over and what is already being paid via subscriptions.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now what is really behind all of 
this? Two motivations,=
 one innocent but naive (David&#39;s, for subscription price reductions, 
an=
d a migration of authors from subscription to Gold journals), the other not=
 so innocent, and certainly not naive (publishers&#39;, to preserve 
current=
 revenue streams, come what may, via pricing strategy and embargoes). It is=
 greatly in the interest of publishers and their current revenue streams --=
 whether they are subscription, pure-Gold, hybrid-Gold or junk-Gold publish=
ers -- to have the research world waste yet another decade inching toward G=
old (on publishers&#39; terms and timetable) instead of first mandating 
cos=
t-free Green universally.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And inching it is, if you look at 
the actual Gold OA pr=
oportions and growth rate, especially among the must-have journals indexed =
by Thomson-Reuters 
ISI.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>An update of 
Gold propo=
rtions and growth rates will be published soon, but this older one from Spr=
inger is still pretty much on-target:=A0<a 
href=3D"http://upload.wikimedia.=
org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Bjorkspring.png">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wik=
ipedia/commons/7/7f/Bjorkspring.png</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>And I&#39;ve never said 
&quot;we should not discuss Gol=
d OA at all until we have 100% Green 
OA.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>I h=
ave consistently been saying that &quot;we should not discuss [or pay for] 
=
Gold OA at all <i>until we have first=A0mandated=A0Green 
OA</i>.&quot;</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>Apologies to those who are not 
interested in the detail=
s, but they are all-important, when it comes to the question of how to inve=
st our time and money (and hopes) regarding Green and 
Gold.</div><div><br>
</div><div>The good news is that when it comes to rights-agreements 
from pu=
blishers that state &quot;<b>Immediate posting and dissemination of 
accepte=
d author manuscripts is allowed to personal websites, to institutional repo=
sitories, or to arXiv</b>&quot; we can (and should) all ignore the 
hedging =
details and go ahead and provide un-embargoed Green OA immediately.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad</div><div><br></div><div>On Sun, May 5, 2=
013 at 4:37 AM, David Prosser=A0<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:dav=
id.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk" target=3D"_blank">david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk</a>&gt;</=
span>=A0wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">I&#39;m sorry Stevan, =
but [Elsevier] have not answered all the questions in a single sentence - t=
hey have attached a large number of conditions to that sentence. =A0The ful=
l answer only comes from reading the entire policy. =A0We may not like the =
conditions, may believe that they are gibberish and even unenforceable (alt=
hough that&#39;s easy for Stevan and me to say as we will never be on the 
r=
eceiving end of the enforcement), but let&#39;s not try to pretend that 
the=
y don&#39;t exist.</div>
</blockquote></div><div>=A0</div></div></div></div>On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5=
:32 AM, David Prosser <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:david.prosser=
 AT rluk.ac.uk" target=3D"_blank">david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrot=
e:<div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div><span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;let=
ter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:n=
ormal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separate;text-t=
ransform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><s=
pan 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text=
-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal=
;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-famil=
y:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;te=
xt-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:norm=
al;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-fam=
ily:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;te=
xt-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:norm=
al;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-fam=
ily:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

Stevan has been consistent over the years in his message that we should not=
 discuss Gold OA at all until we have 100% Green OA. =A0And yet some of us =
still insist on doing so!<div><br></div><div>My point 
was to highlight a pa=
rticular data point for 2012. =A0Are there quibbles? Of course. =A0Does it =
give us the whole picture? =A0Of course not. =A0But for those interested in=
 the transition mechanism it is, as I say, a data point.</div>

<div><br></div><div>But Steven makes a central 
assumption that is misleadin=
g - his point 6. =A0It is certainly true that in a mixed economy institutio=
ns will pay both subscriptions and publication fees (where such fees exist)=
. =A0But Steven implies that this is for the same content. =A0With the exce=
ption of some hybrid OA papers (which are in the minority) this is not the =
case. =A0One paper published in an OA journal is, literally, one less paper=
 in a subscription journal. =A0 All the librarians on the list know that on=
e of the justifications for subscription and big deal price rises is increa=
sing volume of content - either within current journals or through the laun=
ch of new journals. =A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>Naturally, there is not a simple 
one-to-one relationshi=
p between volume increase and price increase, but there is a strong relatio=
nship. =A0OA is taking thousands of papers out of the subscription model an=
d therefore reducing price pressures on subscriptions. =A0Put simply, if th=
ese OA papers had been published in subscription journals then subscription=
 prices would have been higher. =A0This is substitution, not addition. =A0(=
This is obvious if you think what would have happened if those 190k OA pape=
rs had been in subscription journals - do we think that the publishers woul=
d have just absorbed the costs and accepted reduced profits/surpluses?)</di=
v>
</div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></sp=
an></div></span></div></span></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div><span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;let=
ter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:n=
ormal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separate;text-t=
ransform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><s=
pan 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text=
-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal=
;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-famil=
y:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;te=
xt-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:norm=
al;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-fam=
ily:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;te=
xt-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:norm=
al;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-fam=
ily:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;fo=
nt-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separ=
ate;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spaci=
ng:0px"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

<div>On 4 May 2013, at 14:39, Stevan Harnad 
wrote:</div></div></span></div>=
</span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></d=
iv></span></span></div><div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div>Comparing the av=
erage price per article of Gold OA today with the average s=3D<br>

ubscription publisher revenue per article today is uninformative and mislea=
=3D<br>ding.<br><br>1. These are averages across many 
different forms of Go=
ld OA: (i) subsidy- =3D<br>or subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), 
(=
ii) hybrid subscription/Gol=3D<br>

d OA, (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or next to no peer review).=
<br><br>2. They are averages across all journal 
qualities.<br><br>3. They a=
re averages calculated at a time when subscriptions are still in t=3D<br>

he vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles are ac=
=3D<br>cessible in some other way.<br><br>4. Hence not only 
do the (arbitra=
ry) asking prices for Gold vary widely, bu=3D<br>t they vary widely in 
the =
quality and service they deliver.<br>

<br>5. Subscription journals vary too, but it is not at all clear (and 
inde=
ed v=3D<br>ery unlikely) that the Gold subset today matches their quality 
d=
istribution=3D<br>.<br><br>6. While un-cancellable 
subscriptions still prev=
ail, Gold OA is just a supp=3D<br>

lement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by institutions (subscr=
=3D<br>iptions + Gold) and even double-dipping by publishers (for hybrid 
Go=
ld).<br><br>7. The missing factor in all of this is the potential 
of mandat=
ory Green OA=3D<br>

 to first provide OA at no extra cost, and once it reaches 100% globally, t=
=3D<br>o make journals cancellable, so they are forced to cut costs by 
down=
sizing =3D<br>to peer-review alone.<br><br>8. Post-Green Gold 
OA will then =
be provided at a fair, sustainable price, p=3D<br>

aid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the institutional subscripti=
=3D<br>on cancellation savings.<br><br>None of this can be 
calculated on th=
e basis of averaging the price per arti=3D<br>cle of Gold today -- but we 
c=
an be sure that the post-Green cost will be su=3D<br>

bstantially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for subscr=
=3D<br>iptions today, pre-Green.<br><br>Stevan 
Harnad<br></div></blockquote=
></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div>

--089e0160ca3e782efe04dbf842af--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f


[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .