Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] =?iso-8859-1?q?Developing_an_effective_market_for_OA_APCs=3A_Bj?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=F6rk_and_Solomon_study?=

From: Iryna Kuchma <iryna.kuchma AT eifl.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:23:43 +0200


--089e0116019ceb5bef04f468beac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Forwarded message from Kiley, Robert via Global Open Access List
(Successor of AmSci]

A new report published today identifies options through which funders can
help ensure that the rapidly growing open access market delivers high
quality services and value-for-money for the research community.

The report, which was commissioned by a consortium of major research
funders*, is intended to stimulate discussion and debate among funders and
other stakeholders who are committed to ensuring free and open access to
the published outputs of research.

Over recent years, a growing number of funders across the world have
introduced open access policies requiring that peer-reviewed articles
resulting from the research that they support are made freely available to
access and re-use. In turn, an increasing number of journals are providing
an option to authors whereby, in return for a fee known as an article
processing charge (APC), papers are made openly available immediately on
publication. Some journals (known as 'full open access journals') operate
exclusively through this model, whereas other journals ('hybrids') allow
individual papers to be made open access while other papers are only
accessible through subscription. Several funders have started to make
dedicated funds available to pay APCs.

However, these developments have sparked some concerns over rising costs
during a transitional period in which both APCs and subscriptions are paid,
and whether the future market for APCs would be transparent and functional.

This new report, authored by Professor Bo-Christer Bj=F6rk of the Hanken
School of Economics, Finland, and Professor David Solomon of Michigan State
University, USA, sets out to examine the potential risks associated with
the APC open access market, and begins to explore how they could be
addressed.  It is important to acknowledge that there are other routes to
open access (see below), but this study focused specifically on the APC
market.

The economic analyses undertaken provided a strong indication that the full
open access journal market was is functioning well in creating pressure for
journals to moderate the price of APCs. On the other hand, however, the
current hybrid market was found to be extremely dysfunctional, with
significantly higher charges and low levels of uptake. Indeed, the average
APC in a hybrid journal was almost twice that for a born-digital full open
access journal ($2,727 compared to $1,418).

Based on their findings, the authors developed a series of scenarios for
the full open access and hybrid markets. They then undertook a more
detailed analysis of the opportunities and risks associated with three
scenarios which they judged to hold the greatest potential.

*       Scenario 1:  funders would only reimburse APCs for hybrid journals
which had systems in place to ensure institutions which paid these received
equivalent reductions on subscription payments.

*       Scenario 2:  funders could adopt a 'value-based pricing' model in
which they would set tiered caps for the maximum payment they would
contribute toward an APC for a particular journal based on the quality of
the services it provides to authors.

*       Scenario 3:  funders would pay a set proportion of an APC if the
price exceeded a certain threshold.

The report does not recommend a single approach, but rather that funders,
universities and other stakeholders involved in open access consider and
adapt these possible models depending on their individual needs and goals.

Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at the Wellcome Trust, said: "We
hope this report, which is both authoritative and innovative, will spark
widespread discussion and debate. In supporting this work, we as funders
have signalled our commitment to ensuring the future open access market
delivers value for money and meets needs of the research community."

Tony Peatfield, RCUK Policy lead on open access, said: "This report is a
timely and valuable addition to the evidence base, as funders around the
world push for free and unrestricted access to research publications. It
will be a key input to the planned review of the implementation of RCUK's
open access policy later this year."

The report (published under a CC-BY licence) can be downloaded from:
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guid=
es/WTP054773.htm

*The report was commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK,
Jisc, Research Libraries UK, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the FNR
(Luxembourg) and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.



Robert Kiley
Head of Digital Services
Wellcome Library
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.kiley AT wellcome.ac.uk
Library Web site: http://wellcomelibrary.org
The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its
sole Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in
England, no 2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London,
NW1 2BE.

--089e0116019ceb5bef04f468beac
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">[Forwarded message from <span 
class=3D"gmail_sendername">K=
iley, Robert</span> <span dir=3D"ltr">via</span> 
Global Open Access List (S=
uccessor of AmSci]<br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>A new report published=
 today identifies options through which funders can help ensure that the ra=
pidly growing open access market delivers high quality services and value-f=
or-money for the research community.<br>

<br>
The report, which was commissioned by a consortium of major research funder=
s*, is intended to stimulate discussion and debate among funders and other =
stakeholders who are committed to ensuring free and open access to the publ=
ished outputs of research.<br>

<br>
Over recent years, a growing number of funders across the world have introd=
uced open access policies requiring that peer-reviewed articles resulting f=
rom the research that they support are made freely available to access and =
re-use. In turn, an increasing number of journals are providing an option t=
o authors whereby, in return for a fee known as an article processing charg=
e (APC), papers are made openly available immediately on publication. Some =
journals (known as &#39;full open access journals&#39;) operate 
exclusively=
 through this model, whereas other journals (&#39;hybrids&#39;) allow 
indiv=
idual papers to be made open access while other papers are only accessible =
through subscription. Several funders have started to make dedicated funds =
available to pay APCs.<br>

<br>
However, these developments have sparked some concerns over rising costs du=
ring a transitional period in which both APCs and subscriptions are paid, a=
nd whether the future market for APCs would be transparent and functional.<=
br>

<br>
This new report, authored by Professor Bo-Christer Bj=F6rk of the Hanken Sc=
hool of Economics, Finland, and Professor David Solomon of Michigan State U=
niversity, USA, sets out to examine the potential risks associated with the=
 APC open access market, and begins to explore how they could be addressed.=
 =A0It is important to acknowledge that there are other routes to open acce=
ss (see below), but this study focused specifically on the APC 
market.<br>

<br>
The economic analyses undertaken provided a strong indication that the full=
 open access journal market was is functioning well in creating pressure fo=
r journals to moderate the price of APCs. On the other hand, however, the c=
urrent hybrid market was found to be extremely dysfunctional, with signific=
antly higher charges and low levels of uptake. Indeed, the average APC in a=
 hybrid journal was almost twice that for a born-digital full open access j=
ournal ($2,727 compared to $1,418).<br>

<br>
Based on their findings, the authors developed a series of scenarios for th=
e full open access and hybrid markets. They then undertook a more detailed =
analysis of the opportunities and risks associated with three scenarios whi=
ch they judged to hold the greatest potential.<br>

<br>
* =A0 =A0 =A0 Scenario 1: =A0funders would only reimburse APCs for hybrid j=
ournals which had systems in place to ensure institutions which paid these =
received equivalent reductions on subscription payments.<br>
<br>
* =A0 =A0 =A0 Scenario 2: =A0funders could adopt a &#39;value-based 
pricing=
&#39; model in which they would set tiered caps for the maximum payment 
the=
y would contribute toward an APC for a particular journal based on the qual=
ity of the services it provides to authors.<br>

<br>
* =A0 =A0 =A0 Scenario 3: =A0funders would pay a set proportion of an APC i=
f the price exceeded a certain threshold.<br>
<br>
The report does not recommend a single approach, but rather that funders, u=
niversities and other stakeholders involved in open access consider and ada=
pt these possible models depending on their individual needs and 
goals.<br>

<br>
Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at the Wellcome Trust, said: 
&quot;W=
e hope this report, which is both authoritative and innovative, will spark =
widespread discussion and debate. In supporting this work, we as funders ha=
ve signalled our commitment to ensuring the future open access market deliv=
ers value for money and meets needs of the research 
community.&quot;<br>

<br>
Tony Peatfield, RCUK Policy lead on open access, said: &quot;This report 
is=
 a timely and valuable addition to the evidence base, as funders around the=
 world push for free and unrestricted access to research publications. It w=
ill be a key input to the planned review of the implementation of 
RCUK&#39;=
s open access policy later this year.&quot;<br>

<br>
The report (published under a CC-BY licence) can be downloaded from: <a hre=
f=3D"http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access=
/Guides/WTP054773.htm" 
target=3D"_blank">http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us=
/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guides/WTP054773.htm</a><br>

<br>
*The report was commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK, J=
isc, Research Libraries UK, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the FNR (Luxem=
bourg) and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Robert Kiley<br>
Head of Digital Services<br>
Wellcome Library<br>
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE<br>
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:<a 
href=3D"mailto:r.kiley AT we=
llcome.ac.uk">r.kiley AT wellcome.ac.uk</a><br>
Library Web site: <a href=3D"http://wellcomelibrary.org" 
target=3D"_blank">=
http://wellcomelibrary.org</a><br>
The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its sol=
e Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in England, n=
o 2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 
2BE.<br>

<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><br></div>

--089e0116019ceb5bef04f468beac--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .