Greetings:
The claim that OA doesn't lead to cancellations in
Heather's
email below is being made in the context of gold-OA rather
than
green-OA (OA self-archiving) as she is discussing hybrid
journals
which make some of its content OA. I understand reasonable
people
may disagree on whether green-OA may or may not lead to
cancellations, but I am not sure that these people will also
disagree on whether gold-OA will lead to cancellation.
OUP recently revealed information about their conversion of
their
Nucleic Acids Research (NAR) journal to OA. They kept the
subscription rate intact and are providing a print edition
of the
journal to those who keep their subscriptions. They
experienced
30% cancellation in the first year (2005). I was also told
that
they have experienced anther 30% in the second year (2006).
Although I am not sure if this is a 30% of the original 100%
or
of the remaining 70%, it is true in both cases that half or
more
of the subscribers canceled in the first 2 years when the
journal
went OA. The only thing surprising to me is why only about
50%
cancellations in the first 2 years; I would have expected a
near
100% cancellations. I would be very surprised if they don't
reach
a near 100% cancellations is a couple of years from now.
Some may argue that this might be the case when the whole
journal
goes OA and not hybrid where only some percentage is
gold-OA.
That cancellations will not be experienced in these hybrid
cases.
I understand that this is what Heather was arguing for in
her
email message below. I simply don't think so. Cancellations
to OA
journals isn't likely to be a binary phenomenon, zero or
near
zero cancellations until you reach 100% or near 100%
gold-OA.
My feeling is that many people would agree it makes sense to
have
significant cancellations once a journal converts to OA. I
may be
wrong, but I would be interested to hear from people who
think
otherwise. (I am assuming, like in the NAR case that the
subscription rate remains essentially the same and isn't
reduced
dramatically with the OA move.) Isn't this implying that
when a
journal is OA by self-archiving (or most of it anyway like
in
physics) that those who continue to subscribe do so because
they
have the perception (whether that is perception is true or
not)
that the OA material isn't an adequate substitute for the
journal
materials that you get from the publisher website? Heather
says
that "faculty know which journals are important in
their field,
and will not recommend cancellations due to open
access." Isn't
this the case for NAR? It is a first rank journal in its
field
and is published by a highly respected publisher. Surely the
faculty who use the journal know the journal is important.
This
didn't prevent the cancellations, did it?
Why would you continue to subscribe to a journal that is
freely
available online (gold-OA)? You don't, as the 50%-60% of
the NAR
subscribers are telling us, and as I believe most of the
remaining 40%-50% will be telling us in the next couple of
years.
Why would continue to subscribe to a journal that is freely
available online (green-OA)? May be because you don't trust
the
material from the author websites or subject/institutional
repositories. May be because it is easier to locate the
material
on the journal website and download it when needed. May be
because of something else. But it isn't because your
faculty
realize that the journal is important. The journal doesn't
become
less important when it goes gold-OA but stays as important
when
it goes green-OA. The journal is perceived (correctly) to be
truly available online with no subscription needed when it
goes
gold-OA while it is perceived (correctly or incorrectly) not
to
be truly available online with no subscription needed when
it
goes green-OA.
I have one last comment on the subject. Many people assume
that
it is comforting to the publishers to know that librarians
will
not cancel their subscriptions when the journal material is
available online for free (via self-archiving of author
manuscripts, self-archiving of publisher version of the
articles,
deposit in highly functional subject repository like PMC,
etc.).
I don't really believe this to be the case (the
non-cancellation
claim), but if I did, I would be anything but comforted. As
an
entrepreneur, I'd like to work in a well functioning
market. A
market where libraries and institutions pay the publishers
for
something they get in return for their own readers.
Continuing to
subscribe to a journal because it is a great journal
regardless
of whether or not you need a subscription to read the
material
published in the journal reduces the whole system to a
system of
voluntary payments. Should that be the case, I would not
want to
continue investing my money and effort into it.
I want to get paid for the toll access journals we publish
because those paying us need to read these journals. They
pay to
be able to read them, not because they appreciate us being
able
to publish such great journals that they really can read
whether
or not they made their payment. I want to get paid for the
OA
articles we publish because the researchers, their
institutes,
and/or their research funders are getting something in
return for
their money. Their articles being peer-reviewed, affiliated
with
a particular journal with an established particular quality
level, copyedited, XML coded, their references validated and
linked, hosted and served online in a functional online
system
that enable efficient dissemination of content, etc, etc.
That is
the way I want to be getting our revenue: selling content to
consumers who need to buy it to consume it or selling
services to
authors who need to consume such services that get their
articles
properly refereed and properly edited and embedded into the
science literature. Otherwise, we don't have a functioning
market
and I wouldn't be willing to continue my current
activities.
Best regards,
Ahmed Hindawi
http://www.hindawi.com
David Prosser wrote:
> Sally, The reason that physics is 'trotted' out is
because it is
> a piece of evidence and evidence trumps theoretical
concerns.
> Is there one piece of evidence that has been made
public that can
> attribute any of the 3-5% annual decline in
subscriptions over
> the past 20 years to self-archiving? I don't think
there is.
>
> Naturally we can all construct scenarios in which the
market will
> change and publishers have every right to do so. (I
would say
> that small publishers should be doing more of it.) But
to date
> the only evidence we have of the effect of
self-archiving on
> subscription is that there is no effect. Until that
changes you
> shouldn't be surprised that people will bring up
physics to
> counter claims that the sky is falling down.
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail: david.prosser bodley.ox.ac.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sally Morris (ALPSP)
> Sent: 24 July 2006 22:19
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Subscription to Open Access Transition
>
> I do wish people would stop trotting out physics as an
example
> that self archiving does not lead to cancellations.
While it has
> not done so yet, some physics and mathematics
publishers who have
> journals replicated more or less in their entirety in
arXiv have
> made no secret of their concerns, arising from the
significant
> drop in downloads on the publisher's site. Coupled
with evidence
> from surveys of librarians that they would, under
certain
> circumstances, consider cancellation and that usage is
an
> increasingly significant factor, this adds up to a
potentially
> alarming scenario. Please can we stop pretending it
isn't so?
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers
> Email: sally.morrisalpsp.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heather Morrison" <heathermeln.bc.ca>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:20 AM
> Subject: Subscription to Open Access Transition
>
>> greetings Ahmed,
>>
>> Many thanks for your comments on Liblicense about
Subscription to
>> Open Access transition, at
>> http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/List
Archives/0607/msg00185.html.
>>
>> Hindawi certainly has expertise in making OA
business models
>> succeed, and it is very good to see your
paricipation in this
>> discussion!
>>
>> The experience with physics illustrates that open
access does
>> not equate with cancellations; even with 100% open
access in
>> arXiv with some areas of physics, there is no
evidence that
>> this has caused any cancellations.
>>
>> This is because, with academic publishing, the
producers and
>> consumers are largely the same, which is what, to
me, gives
>> hope of a smooth transition. Libraries do not look
at academic
>> journals strictly as a purchaser, as per your
example; rather,
>> they work in cooperation with faculty to decide
what to
>> subscribe to and what to keep rather than cancel.
Faculty know
>> which journals are important in their field, and
will not
>> recommend cancellations due to open access.
>>
>> Funding for open access can - and, ideally, should,
come from a
>> variety of sources. One source is the
university's own funds;
>> this is one pot of money, which is divided up into
different
>> ways (library subscription budget, department
funds).
>>
>> To see the potential for a smooth transition to
open access, I
>> think it is helpful to look beyond the differences,
and see the
>> one pot of money that can easily be transformed
from purchase
>> to production-based payment. This is easiest with
one central
>> purchasing department, and to me, it makes sense
that this
>> would be the library.
>>
>> The subscription / open choice hybrid is just one
approach to
>> this transition, which might work better for some
publishers
>> than others - particularly traditional publishers
who might be
>> finding a straightfoward OA transition difficult.
>>
>> It makes sense to me that libraries should also
coordinate
>> payments to more straightforward OA publishers.
This will mean
>> invoicing efficiencies for universities, libraries,
and
>> publishers. This, too, can be a hybrid system,
which may be
>> less visible for the publisher - that is, funds
might come from
>> funding agencies, departments, or the library
budget, or some
>> combination - the publisher need not know the
details.
>>
>> For the OA publisher, in addition to invoicing
efficiencies,
>> this can be a helpful marketing tool; once the
invoicing
>> arrangement is set up, libraries can help to
provide
>> information to faculty about how to go about
publishing OA with
>> the libraries' partners.
>>
>> If any library would like to pursue this, one
option at present
>> is to consider this on a publisher-by-publisher
and/or
>> journal-by-journal basis. For example, if a
publisher or
>> journal has a reputation for excellent quality at
reasonable
>> prices, then the library might pre-approve payment
of 100% of
>> the fee. Of, if the library does not see 100% as
affordable,
>> the library could coordinate payment and pay a
percentage if
>> the department pays the rest; it might be wise to
cap the fee
>> the library will pay, to encourage efficiency in
the system,
>> and make sure that faculty members look carefully
at the higher
>> fees.
>>
>> There are other hybrid arrangements already in
place that
>> publishers are participating in, like PLoS or BMC,
which offer
>> a membership arrangement for libraries that
automatically means
>> a lower fee for their faculty on submission.
>>
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Heather G. Morrison
>> http://poeticecon
omics.blogspot.com
|