Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

From: David Prosser <david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:18:03 +0100


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


--Apple-Mail-36-588943290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

(Cross-posted)

The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:

=
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-=
scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all

I was struck by one paragraph in particular:

Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals =
generated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue =
journals brought their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was =
up by 34% from 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number =
of open-access papers is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a total =
of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in the same period.


By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown was :

For Open Access =3D $890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)
For Sub Access =3D $3,500 per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers)=20

If the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in subscription =
journals the extra costs could have been around $500 million =
((3500-890)x194000).  If you believe that all of these papers would =
probably have been published whatever the business model you could =
recast this as the worldwide community having made a saving of $500 =
million.

If all 1.7m papers published in 2012 had been OA at $890 per paper the =
$6 billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a year =
business.

There are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are =
correct), but it is clear that=20

a) the direct costs of publishing in OA journals are current =
significantly lower than publishing in subscriptions journals

b) the average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the =
roughly =A31,450 per article that represented the break-even point for =
the UK under which the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA

c) the average is much, much lower than the typical price being offered =
for 'hybrid' OA.=20

It would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper =
figure is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is =
interesting that, at least for the moment, the figure is so low.

David






--Apple-Mail-36-588943290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=iso-8859-1

<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: 
space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div>(Cross-posted)</div><div><br></div>The Economist has published =
another piece on open access publishing:<br><br><a =
href=3D"http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open=
-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all">http://www.economis=
t.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-scientific-publishi=
ng-gaining-ground-free-all</a><br><br>I was struck by one 
paragraph in =
particular:<br><br><blockquote 
class=3D"webkit-indent-blockquote" =
style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">Outsell, 
a =
Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals generated =
$172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals brought =
their&nbsp;publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% =
from 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of =
open-access papers is forecast to&nbsp;grow from 194,000 (out of a total =
of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in the same =
period.</blockquote><br><br><div>By my reckoning this 
means that in 2012 =
the revenue breakdown was 
:</div><div><br></div><div>For Open Access =3D =
$890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)</div><div>For Sub Access =3D 
$3,500 =
per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m 
papers)&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>If =
the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in subscription =
journals the extra costs could have been around $500 million =
((3500-890)x194000). &nbsp;If you believe that all of these papers would =
probably have been published whatever the business model you could =
recast this as the worldwide community having made a saving of $500 =
million.</div><div><br></div><div>If all 1.7m 
papers published in 2012 =
had been OA at $890 per paper the $6 billion a year business would =
shrink to a $1.5 billion a year 
business.</div><div><br></div><div>There =
are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are correct), but =
it is clear 
that&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>a) the 
direct costs of =
publishing in OA journals are current significantly lower than =
publishing in subscriptions 
journals</div><div><br></div><div>b) the =
average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the roughly =
=A31,450 per article that represented the break-even point for the UK =
under which the UK would save money if we moved totally to =
OA</div><div><br></div><div>c) the average is 
much, much lower than the =
typical price being offered for 'hybrid' =
OA.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>It would 
be very easy to construct an =
argument that the $890 per paper figure is not scaleable to all of =
journal publishing, but it is interesting that, at least for the moment, =
the figure is so =
low.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-36-588943290--

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


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

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 09:39:35 -0400


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

--047d7b603bf42aeb2b04dbe4992e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Comparing the average price per article of Gold OA today with the average
subscription publisher revenue per article today is uninformative and
misleading.

1. 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).

2. They are averages across all journal qualities.

3. They are averages calculated at a time when subscriptions are still in
the vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles are
accessible in some other way.

4. Hence not only do the (arbitrary) asking prices for Gold vary widely,
but they vary widely in the quality and service they deliver.

5. Subscription journals vary too, but it is not at all clear (and indeed
very unlikely) that the Gold subset today matches their quality
distribution.

6. While un-cancellable subscriptions still prevail, Gold OA is just a
supplement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by institutions
(subscriptions + 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, to
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,
paid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the institutional
subscription cancellation savings.

None of this can be calculated on the basis of averaging the price per
article of Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost will
be substantially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for
subscriptions today, pre-Green.

Stevan Harnad

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>wr=
ote:

> (Cross-posted)
>
> The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:
>
>
> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access=
-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all
>
> I was struck by one paragraph in particular:
>
> Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals
> generated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals
> brought their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34%
> from 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of open-acce=
ss
> papers is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a total of 1.7m
> publications) to 352,000 in the same period.
>
>
>
> By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown was :
>
> For Open Access =3D $890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)
> For Sub Access =3D $3,500 per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers)
>
> If the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in subscription
> journals the extra costs could have been around $500 million
> ((3500-890)x194000).  If you believe that all of these papers would
> probably have been published whatever the business model you could recast
> this as the worldwide community having made a saving of $500 million.
>
> If all 1.7m papers published in 2012 had been OA at $890 per paper the $6
> billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a year business.
>
> There are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are correct),
> but it is clear that
>
> a) the direct costs of publishing in OA journals are current significantl=
y
> lower than publishing in subscriptions journals
>
> b) the average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the
> roughly =A31,450 per article that represented the break-even point for th=
e UK
> under which the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA
>
> c) the average is much, much lower than the typical price being offered
> for 'hybrid' OA.
>
> It would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper
> figure is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is interesti=
ng
> that, at least for the moment, the figure is so low.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>

--047d7b603bf42aeb2b04dbe4992e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.<div><br></div><div>1. 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).</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. They are averages across all 
journal qualities.=A0</=
div><div><br></div><div>3. They are averages 
calculated at a time when subs=
criptions are still in the vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unle=
ss their articles are accessible in some other way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>4. Hence not only do the 
(arbitrary) asking prices for =
Gold vary widely, but they vary widely in the quality and service they deli=
ver.</div><div><br></div><div>5. Subscription 
journals vary too, but it is =
not at all clear (and indeed very unlikely) that the Gold subset today matc=
hes their quality distribution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>6. While un-cancellable 
subscriptions still prevail, Go=
ld OA is just a supplement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by =
institutions (subscriptions + Gold) and even double-dipping by publishers (=
for hybrid Gold).</div>
<div><br></div><div>7. The missing factor in all of 
this is the potential o=
f mandatory Green OA to first provide OA at no extra cost, and once it reac=
hes 100% globally, to make journals <i>cancellable</i>, so they are 
forced =
to cut costs by downsizing to peer-review alone.</div>
<div><br></div><div>8. Post-Green Gold OA will then be 
provided at a fair, =
sustainable price, paid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the inst=
itutional subscription cancellation 
savings.</div><div><br></div><div>None =
of this can be calculated on the basis of averaging the price per article o=
f Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost will be substan=
tially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for subscriptio=
ns today, pre-Green.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
 May 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk" 
target=3D"_blank">david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>(Cr=
oss-posted)</div><div><br></div>The Economist has 
published another piece o=
n open access publishing:<br>
<br><a 
href=3D"http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157703=
5-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all" 
target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-acce=
ss-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all</a><br>
<br>I was struck by one paragraph in 
particular:<br><br><blockquote style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">Outsell, a 
Californian consu=
ltancy, estimates that open-access journals generated $172m in 2012. That w=
as just 2.8% of the total revenue journals brought their=A0publishers (some=
 $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% from 2011 and is expected to reac=
h $336m in 2015. The number of open-access papers is forecast to=A0grow fro=
m 194,000 (out of a total of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in the same peri=
od.</blockquote>
<br><br><div>By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the 
revenue breakdown =
was :</div><div><br></div><div>For Open Access 
=3D $890 per paper ($172m / =
194k papers)</div><div>For Sub Access =3D $3,500 per paper ($6 
billion / 1.=
7m papers)=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>If the 194,000 papers published in 
OA had been publishe=
d in subscription journals the extra costs could have been around $500 mill=
ion ((3500-890)x194000). =A0If you believe that all of these papers would p=
robably have been published whatever the business model you could recast th=
is as the worldwide community having made a saving of $500 million.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If all 1.7m papers published in 
2012 had been OA at $89=
0 per paper the $6 billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a=
 year business.</div><div><br></div><div>There 
are lots of assumptions here=
 (not least that my maths are correct), but it is clear that=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>a) the direct costs of publishing 
in OA journals are cu=
rrent significantly lower than publishing in subscriptions 
journals</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>b) the average cost per paper in OA is 
significantly lowe=
r than the roughly =A31,450 per article that represented the break-even poi=
nt for the UK under which the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA=
</div>
<div><br></div><div>c) the average is much, much lower 
than the typical pri=
ce being offered for &#39;hybrid&#39; 
OA.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>It wo=
uld be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper figure is=
 not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is interesting that, at=
 least for the moment, the figure is so low.</div>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font 
color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>David</d=
iv><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><br></d=
iv></font></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<=
br>

GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org">GOAL AT 
eprints.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" 
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b603bf42aeb2b04dbe4992e--

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


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

From: David Prosser <david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:32:41 +0100


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


--Apple-Mail-3-744621209
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

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. =20

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?)

So, even in a transition period it is clear that there are cost savings =
in OA Gold publishing.

David




On 4 May 2013, at 14:39, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> Comparing the average price per article of Gold OA today with the =
average subscription publisher revenue per article today is =
uninformative and misleading.
>=20
> 1. 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).
>=20
> 2. They are averages across all journal qualities.=20
>=20
> 3. They are averages calculated at a time when subscriptions are still =
in the vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles =
are accessible in some other way.
>=20
> 4. Hence not only do the (arbitrary) asking prices for Gold vary =
widely, but they vary widely in the quality and service they deliver.
>=20
> 5. Subscription journals vary too, but it is not at all clear (and =
indeed very unlikely) that the Gold subset today matches their quality =
distribution.
>=20
> 6. While un-cancellable subscriptions still prevail, Gold OA is just a =
supplement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by institutions =
(subscriptions + Gold) and even double-dipping by publishers (for hybrid =
Gold).
>=20
> 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, to make journals cancellable, so they are forced to cut costs =
by downsizing to peer-review alone.
>=20
> 8. Post-Green Gold OA will then be provided at a fair, sustainable =
price, paid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the institutional =
subscription cancellation savings.
>=20
> None of this can be calculated on the basis of averaging the price per =
article of Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost =
will be substantially lower than the average publisher revenue per =
article for subscriptions today, pre-Green.
>=20
> Stevan Harnad
>=20
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser =
<david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
> (Cross-posted)
>=20
> The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:
>=20
> =
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-=
scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all
>=20
> I was struck by one paragraph in particular:
>=20
> Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access =
journals generated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total =
revenue journals brought their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but =
it was up by 34% from 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The =
number of open-access papers is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a =
total of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in the same period.
>=20
>=20
> By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown was :
>=20
> For Open Access =3D $890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)
> For Sub Access =3D $3,500 per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers)=20
>=20
> If the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in =
subscription journals the extra costs could have been around $500 =
million ((3500-890)x194000).  If you believe that all of these papers =
would probably have been published whatever the business model you could =
recast this as the worldwide community having made a saving of $500 =
million.
>=20
> If all 1.7m papers published in 2012 had been OA at $890 per paper the =
$6 billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a year =
business.
>=20
> There are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are =
correct), but it is clear that=20
>=20
> a) the direct costs of publishing in OA journals are current =
significantly lower than publishing in subscriptions journals
>=20
> b) the average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the =
roughly =A31,450 per article that represented the break-even point for =
the UK under which the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA
>=20
> c) the average is much, much lower than the typical price being =
offered for 'hybrid' OA.=20
>=20
> It would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper =
figure is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is =
interesting that, at least for the moment, the figure is so low.
>=20
> David
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>=20
>=20
> <ATT00001..txt>


--Apple-Mail-3-744621209
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=iso-8859-1

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: 
break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
">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. &nbsp;And =
yet some of us still insist on doing 
so!<div><br></div><div>My point was =
to highlight a particular data point for 2012. &nbsp;Are there quibbles? =
Of course. &nbsp;Does it give us the whole picture? &nbsp;Of course 
not. =
&nbsp;But 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 misleading - his point 6. &nbsp;It is certainly true =
that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both subscriptions and =
publication fees (where such fees exist). &nbsp;But Steven implies that =
this is for the same content. &nbsp;With the exception of some hybrid OA =
papers (which are in the minority) this is not the case. &nbsp;One paper =
published in an OA journal is, literally, one less paper in a =
subscription journal. &nbsp; 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. 
&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Naturally, =
there is not a simple one-to-one relationship between volume increase =
and price increase, but there is a strong relationship. &nbsp;OA is =
taking thousands of papers out of the subscription model and therefore =
reducing price pressures on subscriptions. &nbsp;Put simply, if these OA =
papers had been published in subscription journals then subscription =
prices would have been higher. &nbsp;This is substitution, not addition. =
&nbsp;(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?)</div><div><br></div><div>So, 
even in a transition =
period it is clear that there are cost savings in OA Gold =
publishing.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br><div>
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: 
separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; 
color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: =
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; =
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; =
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span 
class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: =
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br></div><div 
=
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><br></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></d=
iv></span></div></span></div></span></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 4 May 2013, at 14:39, Stevan Harnad 
wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote 
type=3D"cite">Comparing =
the average price per article of Gold OA today with the average =
subscription publisher revenue per article today is uninformative and =
misleading.<div><br></div><div>1. 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).</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. They are averages across all 
journal =
qualities.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>3. 
They are averages =
calculated at a time when subscriptions are still in the vast majority, =
and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles are accessible in =
some other way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>4. Hence not only do the 
(arbitrary) asking prices =
for Gold vary widely, but they vary widely in the quality and service =
they deliver.</div><div><br></div><div>5. 
Subscription journals vary =
too, but it is not at all clear (and indeed very unlikely) that the Gold =
subset today matches their quality distribution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>6. While un-cancellable 
subscriptions still prevail, =
Gold OA is just a supplement, not a substitute, it entails =
double-payment by institutions (subscriptions + Gold) and even =
double-dipping by publishers (for hybrid Gold).</div>
<div><br></div><div>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, to make journals 
<i>cancellable</i>, =
so they are forced to cut costs by downsizing to peer-review =
alone.</div>
<div><br></div><div>8. Post-Green Gold OA will then be 
provided at a =
fair, sustainable price, paid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of =
the institutional subscription cancellation =
savings.</div><div><br></div><div>None of this 
can be calculated on the =
basis of averaging the price per article of Gold today -- but we can be =
sure that the post-Green cost will be substantially lower than the =
average publisher revenue per article for subscriptions today, =
pre-Green.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On =
Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:18 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> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>(Cross-posted)</div><div><br></div>The=
 Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:<br>
<br><a =
href=3D"http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open=
-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all" =
target=3D"_blank">http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/215=
77035-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all</a><br>
<br>I was struck by one paragraph in 
particular:<br><br><blockquote =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">Outsell, a =
Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals generated =
$172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals brought =
their&nbsp;publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% =
from 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of =
open-access papers is forecast to&nbsp;grow from 194,000 (out of a total =
of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in the same period.</blockquote>
<br><br><div>By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the 
revenue =
breakdown was :</div><div><br></div><div>For Open 
Access =3D $890 per =
paper ($172m / 194k papers)</div><div>For Sub Access =3D $3,500 per 
=
paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers)&nbsp;</div>
<div><br></div><div>If the 194,000 papers published in 
OA had been =
published in subscription journals the extra costs could have been =
around $500 million ((3500-890)x194000). &nbsp;If you believe that all =
of these papers would probably have been published whatever the business =
model you could recast this as the worldwide community having made a =
saving of $500 million.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If all 1.7m papers published in 
2012 had been OA at =
$890 per paper the $6 billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 =
billion a year 
business.</div><div><br></div><div>There are lots 
of =
assumptions here (not least that my maths are correct), but it is clear =
that&nbsp;</div>
<div><br></div><div>a) the direct costs of publishing 
in OA journals are =
current significantly lower than publishing in subscriptions =
journals</div><div><br></div><div>b) the average 
cost per paper in OA is =
significantly lower than the roughly =A31,450 per article that =
represented the break-even point for the UK under which the UK would =
save money if we moved totally to OA</div>
<div><br></div><div>c) the average is much, much lower 
than the typical =
price being offered for 'hybrid' 
OA.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>It =
would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper =
figure is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is =
interesting that, at least for the moment, the figure is so low.</div>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font =
color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div><div><br><=
/div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><br></div></font></span></div><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>

GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org">GOAL AT 
eprints.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" =
target=3D"_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>=
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
=
<span>&lt;ATT00001..txt&gt;</span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></ht=
ml>=

--Apple-Mail-3-744621209--

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


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

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 11:43:24 -0400


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

--047d7b3a7fe6cd6e5104dbfa718c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>
 wrote:

Is Steven saying that Gold OA articles are, on average, articles[that]
> couldn't have been published in subscription journals?
>

No. They're articles that could have been published in either kind of
journal (at the same level of quality standards).

My point was that an article published in a Gold journal today does not
reduce institutions' need to subscribe to their must-see journals.

Nor does it reduce the subscription price of their must-see journals.

Of course, if most must-see subscription-journal articles were published in
Gold journals, the must-see subscription journals could be cancelled,
ending double-payment.

But, as the Springer graph shows, that path means yet another decade or two
of waiting for OA, at least.

In contrast, if Green OA is universally mandated now by funders and
institutions, the wait will be far shorter, the OA itself will be 60%
immediate ("Angels") and 40% Almost-Immediate (Button), and the price 
of
post-Green Fair-Gold, when it comes, will be affordable and sustainable
(unlike today's pre-Green, inflated, double-paid, and sometimes
double-dipped, Fool's-Gold).

Stevan Harnad

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser AT 
rluk.ac.uk>wrote:

> This could, of course, run and run with Stevan and I mis-understanding
> each other forever.  I'm not sure how I can make my point any simpler than
> I did:
>
> 'Put simply, if these OA papers had been published in subscription
> journals then subscription prices would have been higher.'
>
> Steven is arguing that the $172 million that Outsell identified as revenue
> for 190k OA gold articles is on top of subscription revenue for those
> articles - i.e., the community pays for them twice.  I'm arguing that it 
is
> a substitution - an OA gold article is not paid for by subscriptions (with
> the possible exception of the minority of articles in hybrid journals 
where
> 'douple-dipping' may exists).  I can't believe that subscription 
publishers
> would have been happy publishing extra 190k papers in 2012 without some
> reflection in increased pricing (perhaps time-shifted to 2013).  We are 
not
> at the stage of large-scale price reductions, but there is less pressure 
on
> price increases - which is what I thought I'd said.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Is Steven saying that Gold OA articles are, on average, articles where the
> authors couldn't have been published in subscription journals?  If so, 
I'll
> bet against him.  How do we measure this?
>
> On publisher double-talk, my only point was that a publisher who indulges
> in it cannot be described as on the side of the angels.  For reasons I
> don't understand Steven wants to give Elsevier that title, despite all the
> evidence of their policy.
>
> David
>
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 14:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>  <ATT00001..txt>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>

--047d7b3a7fe6cd6e5104dbfa718c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser=A0<span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk" 
target=3D"_blank">david.prosse=
r AT 
rluk.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>=A0wrote:</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bord=
er-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>Is Steven saying 
that Gold OA arti=
cles are, on average, articles[that] couldn&#39;t have been published in 
su=
bscription journals? 
=A0</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. Th=
ey&#39;re articles that could have been published in either kind of 
journal=
 (at the same level of quality standards).</div>
<div><br></div><div>My point was that an article 
published in a Gold journa=
l today does not reduce institutions&#39; need to subscribe to their 
must-s=
ee journals.</div><div><br></div><div>Nor does it 
reduce the subscription p=
rice of their must-see journals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, if most must-see 
subscription-journal articl=
es were published in Gold journals, the must-see subscription journals coul=
d be cancelled, ending 
double-payment.</div><div><br></div><div>But, as 
the=
 Springer graph shows, that path means yet another decade or two of waiting=
 for OA, at least.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In contrast, if Green OA is 
universally mandated now by=
 funders and institutions, the wait will be far shorter, the OA itself will=
 be 60% immediate (&quot;Angels&quot;) and 40% Almost-Immediate 
(Button), a=
nd the price of post-Green Fair-Gold, when it comes, will be affordable and=
 sustainable (unlike today&#39;s pre-Green, inflated, double-paid, and 
some=
times double-dipped, Fool&#39;s-Gold).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad</div></div></div><div><br></div>On 
Sun, M=
ay 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk" 
target=3D"_blank">david.prosser AT rluk.ac.uk</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<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"wor=
d-wrap:break-word">This could, of course, run and run with Stevan and I 
mis=
-understanding each other forever. =A0I&#39;m not sure how I can make my 
po=
int any simpler than I did:<div>
<br></div><div>&#39;Put simply, if these OA papers had 
been published in su=
bscription journals then subscription prices would have been 
higher.&#39;</=
div><div><br></div><div>Steven is arguing that the 
$172 million that Outsel=
l identified as revenue for 190k OA gold articles is on top of subscription=
 revenue for those articles - i.e., the community pays for them twice. =A0I=
&#39;m arguing that it is a substitution - an OA gold article is not paid 
f=
or by subscriptions (with the possible exception of the minority of article=
s in hybrid journals where &#39;douple-dipping&#39; may exists). =A0I 
can&#=
39;t believe that subscription publishers would have been happy publishing =
extra 190k papers in 2012 without some reflection in increased pricing (per=
haps time-shifted to 2013). =A0We are not at the stage of large-scale price=
 reductions, but there is less pressure on price increases - which is what =
I thought I&#39;d said.</div>
<div><br></div><div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div><div><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div>It is a safe bet that (apart from the hybrid Gold 
minority) th=
ose 190K articles are not articles from the must-see journals to which most=
 institutions have been reduced by the un-affordability of subscriptions.</=
div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Is Steven saying t=
hat Gold OA articles are, on average, articles where the authors 
couldn&#39=
;t have been published in subscription journals? =A0If so, I&#39;ll bet 
aga=
inst him. =A0How do we measure this? =A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>On publisher double-talk, my only 
point was that a publ=
isher who indulges in it cannot be described as on the side of the angels. =
=A0For reasons I don&#39;t understand Steven wants to give Elsevier that 
ti=
tle, despite all the evidence of their policy.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div><div><span 
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:no=
ne;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0=
px"><span 
style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:norma=
l;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:=
normal;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;font-size:medium;white-=
space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wra=
p: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;font-size:medium;white-spac=
e:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:br=
eak-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;font-size:medium;white-spac=
e:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:br=
eak-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;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Hel=
vetica;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;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Hel=
vetica;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;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Hel=
vetica;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;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Hel=
vetica;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;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Hel=
vetica;word-spacing:0px"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
David<br><br></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></sp=
an></div></span></div></span></div></span></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 5 May 2013, at 14:07, Stevan Harnad 
wrote:</div><br><block=
quote type=3D"cite"><div>On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, 
David Prosser=A0<s=
pan 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"><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-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" 
target=3D"_blank">http://upload=
.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/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>
<span>&lt;ATT00001..txt&gt;</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>=
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org">GOAL AT 
eprints.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" 
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--047d7b3a7fe6cd6e5104dbfa718c--

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


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .