FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing

Sally has her examples wrong, but her conclusions are
correct. 
David has his examples right, but his conclusions are
incorrect. 
What is being overlooked is that the value-added function of

publishing is to SUPPRESS production through selectivity,
not to 
encourage it.  Google "david goodman" (464,000
pages returned) 
and ask what happens when the editorial function has an
economic 
incentive to approve more materials, not fewer.  ("joe
esposito" 
returns fewer pages:  More Gold, Less Dross!)  The Web is
not an 
encyclopedia or a substitute for a publishing enterprise; it
is a 
pile of manure, through which one searches, holding one's
nose, 
to find the pony. That is why Google is worth so much,
because it 
looks for the pony and the Web stinks.

Open Access will significantly increase the cost of
scholarly 
communications by creating incentives for production, when
what 
is needed are filters for selection.  You can't change one
cog in 
the machine without having the machine go off in an
unintended 
direction.  Think of the savings and loan scandal of a few
years 
ago, the most apposite precedent for OA publishing that
there is: 
one change in a vast body of linked laws and it almost
bankrupted 
the nation.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodmanPrinceton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing

> Surely by now it should be obvious that there is no
good 
> pricing model. I have yet to see one that was not
unfair to 
> some group of libraries. There is a possibility that a
system 
> could be devised that offers a choice of models to the 
> library--and in fact one has the option from some
providers, 
> such a OCLC, to purchase some databases either at a
flat rate 
> or by the search;  even then, the relative pricing of
the two 
> access routes will be contentious.
>
> Fortunately, this is problem only for databases and
other 
> secondary services. As all readers of this list must
know, 
> there is a universally fair pricing model for journals,
that of 
> open access journals. More precisely, it is fair to 
> universities, although not necessarily to their
libraries, for 
> it apportions charges according to the amount of
research funds 
> available. Just as the cost for research staff depends
directly 
> on the research funding, just as the cost of research
supplies 
> depends on the research funding, so will the cost of
publishing 
> the results.
>
> Just as no university wishes to overpay for research
supplies, 
> they will not want to overpay for research publication
costs. 
> The expense of research supplies is determined by a
free 
> market, and so will be the expense for research
publishing.
>
> Sally's examples are just plain wrong. I have never
known an 
> institution that does not bargain aggressively for
telephone 
> service.The cost of such service has gone down
dramatically, as 
> new and more efficient technology has entered the
market-- to a 
> considerable extent, from other than the traditional
providers. 
> I have never known an organization of any sort that
does not 
> strenuously promote the efficient use of heating and
lighting; 
> most universities find it worthwhile to pay technical
staff to 
> optimize their facilities. Not just large institutions
but 
> individual households try to deal with the cost of
utilities 
> efficiently, so the concept should not be unfamiliar.
>
> I've said this before. Sally has not yet learned it,
just as 
> the publishers in general have not yet learned it. At
least 
> they are beginning to experiment. It is a good thing
they do: 
> if they do not provide a cost-efficient service, they,
just as 
> other outmoded communications services, will be
replaced by 
> more efficient alternatives.
>
> It is in this light that we look on Sally's quoted
costs for 
> peer review.  If her figures are right, it is the most 
> expensive part of journal publishing, because the
per-article 
> OA charges of even expensive commercial publishers is
less than 
> double her figures. It can be done for less: the per
-article 
> cost of publishing Physical Review is less than $1500
-- the 
> exact amount depends upon whom you ask--and the price
of 
> Physical Review to libraries declines a little most
years (the 
> absolute price, not even adjusted for inflation). The
quality 
> of their peer review does not seem to suffer.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodmanprinceton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)"
<sally.morrisalpsp.org>
> Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:29 pm
> Subject: Re: FTE-based pricing and usage-based pricing
> To: Liblicense <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
>
>> Usage-based pricing only discourages use at a
certain level.
>>
>> Do we refrain from using telephones?  Electricity? 
Water?  Yet
>> many of us pay for these, at least in part, on a
usage basis.
>> It's all a matter of pricing level, isn't it?
>>
>> The trick would be to work out a pricing model
which, in total,
>> produced the same amount of money (give or take) to
producers,
>> but distributed its payment more fairly among
users.  Of course,
>> heavy users who paid more would hate it - low users
who paid less
>> would love it.  And that may, in fact, be the main
obstacle!
>>
>> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
>> Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers
>> Email: sally.morrisalpsp.org
>> Website:  www.alpsp.org