Anthony,
I certainly don't want to make any undue assertions about
authors' behavior, since this is an all-too-common
phenomenon in
the debate surrounding open access. However, I think it is
quite
reasonable to assume that if authors are responsible for
paying
the publications costs of their articles, using money from
their
research budget, they will have a pretty strong incentive to
consider the costs associated with a particular journal.
Researchers regularly make decisions about how to spend
their
research funds, whether on equipment, graduate students and
postdocs, conferences, etc. I don't see any reason why
publication costs should be any different.
When you ask how I know that authors will act in the way I
described, I am not sure that I entirely understand your
question. If you mean "how can you be sure that authors
will care
how much money they spend on publication charges?" then
my
response is that you should look at how they spend the rest
of
their research budget. Unless you can point me to studies
showing
that researchers tend to fly first-class when their tickets
are
paid from their research budget, or that they buy
unnecessarily
expensive equipment, or overpay their graduate students, I
do not
see that this should be a significant concern. Since
researchers
can only spend the money that has been given to them by
funding
agencies, and funding agencies are generally pretty careful
when
it comes to evaluating budgets in grant proposals, there
should
be a reasonably strong incentive for authors to minimize
their
publication costs.
In regards to funding agencies making these decisions on
behalf
of authors, I don't see how this can produce an efficient
market
for scholarly journals. The reason is simply that it is
difficult
for a centralized authority to decide how people should
spend
their money. The essence of a free market is that consumers
(authors in the case of scholarly journals) are best
positioned
to decide which products provide them with the greatest
value,
based on their particular needs.
So far there have been two proposed systems for how funders
can
make these decisions on behalf of their researchers: (1) by
having a set amount (say $3,000) that they are willing to
pay for
the publication of an article (which is more or less the
policy
of the Wellcome Trust), or (2) by deciding in which journals
their authors should be publishing, and negotiating
individual
deals with each of these "approved" journals
(which is more or
less the policy proposed by CERN's SCOAP3). The first model
sounds like a return to the days of regulated airlines,
which
prohibited all price-based competition within the airline
market.
The second model resembles the soviet economic model, where
consumers could only choose from a limited number of
products
that a centralized authority had selected for them.
In the "fixed price-per-article" model, publishers
would be able
to compete on non-financial terms, but there would be
virtually
no pressure on them to keep their charges below the level
set by
research funders. While I can envision a world of
"regulated
publishing," with competition between publishers
occurring on a
non-financial basis, my original point was simply that we
should
not expect this model to lead to a reduction in the cost of
journals.
In the "publish in approved journals" model, the
barrier to entry
for new journals or new publishers would be significantly
increased, and finding a good mechanism for determining the
price
of each journal would be quite difficult. One of my main
concerns
regarding CERN's SCOAP3 proposal is that new journals that
have
yet to be "approved" by the consortium would be
forced to
directly charge authors, at least until they are determined
to be
worthy of approval, while "approved" journals will
be able to
provide "free" open access. Launching a new
journal is difficult
enough in any model, but trying to do so when your journal
(relying on direct payment from authors) must compete with
established journals (which will appear to be free from an
author's perspective), would be significantly more
difficult.
Moreover, I assume that if funding agencies in high-energy
physics contribute the funds needed to implement SCOAP3,
they
will not be willing to provide their grant recipients with
additional funds to pay for publication in
"non-approved"
journals. So, in order to launch a new open access journal
in
this model, you would need to convince authors to pay, out
of
their own pocket, for publishing in a new journal that does
not
yet have an established reputation, when they could
otherwise
publish in an established journal that appears to provide
open
access for free. In addition, if the amount of money given
to
each "approved" journal is going to be based on
negotiations
between the consortium of research funders and the
publishers of
existing journals, I doubt that this will lead to an
efficient
pricing system.
There is another important benefit of giving authors the
choice
of how much they are willing to spend to publish in a given
journal. If authors have the ability to publish in the
journal of
their choice, provided that they pay the required
publication
charges from their research budget, one would expect to see
a
wide range of options that can accommodate the various needs
of
authors. Imagine a world in which all existing journals are
converted to open access, with publication charges paid
directly
from the research budget of authors. If an author would like
to
publish their work in Nature, which would most likely
require a
higher than average fee due to its high reject rate, they
would
need to decide whether this is an efficient use of their
research
budget. Similarly, if they would like to publish in a
journal
with an exceptionally fast review speed, or a journal with
labor-intensive production services, they would need to
determine
what sort of value the journal can provide based on their
individual needs. In such a world, publishers would provide
those
services which authors find to be of greatest value, and
authors
would have a range of choices based on their individual
needs.
After all, isn't this the essential purpose of having a
market-based economy?
I apologize for the lengthy reply, but I think it's
important to
understand the implications of each of the various roads to
gold
open access. I am aware that there are limitations of
"open
access paid from the research budgets of authors,"
especially in
fields with limited research funding. However, if the goal
is to
create an efficient market for scholarly publishing, which
can
provide the best services at the lowest price, it is
essential
for authors to consider the costs associated with a
particular
journal when choosing where to publish their work. I
appreciate
that there are a number of industries in which the free
market
may not work particularly well (law enforcement would be a
good
example), but I do not see any good reasons why market-based
competition will not work in the scholarly publishing
industry.
-------------------------------
Paul Peters
Head of Business Development
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
-------------------------------
Anthony Watkinson wrote:
> Although I have a lot of admiration for what Hindawi is
doing I
> cannot accept the assertions you are maiking Paul. How
do you
> know authors will act in the way that you suggest? It
is
> possible that those funding them will act in this way
i.e. make
> their own calculations about what is a good deal. I
wonder how
> they will tell.
>
> Anthony
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <paul.peters hindawi.com>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:58 PM
> Subject: RE: Matt Cockerill's comments
>
>> Professor Feinman,
>>
>> While you are certainly correct that publishers
will try to maximize
>> the revenue of their journals regardless of whether
they are open
>> access or subscription-based, the ability of a
publisher to charge
>> significantly more than their service is worth will
be greatly reduced
>> in an open access model. The reason for this is
quite simple; "gold"
>> open access publishing will lead to a more
efficient market.
>>
>> There are several inefficiencies within the
subscription market that
>> will be reduced or eliminated in an open access
world.
>>
>> 1)If authors are responsible for paying the costs
associated with
>> publishing in a particular journal, there will be a
greater pressure
>> on publishers to keep their prices at a competitive
level. In the
>> subscription world, authors generally do not take
the price of a
>> journal into consideration when choosing where to
submit their work.
>> While there certainly are exceptions, authors tend
to submit to
>> journals based on their prestige, speed, production
quality, etc. In
>> an open access world, authors would still take into
consideration the
>> prestige, speed, and production quality of a
journal, but they would
>> also tend to pay greater attention to the costs
associated with each
>> journal. Authors willing to pay a higher Article
Processing Charge to
>> publish in a journal with faster publication speeds
or a better
>> reputation would certainly be free to do so, but
publishers would be
>> under far greater pressure to keep their prices in
line with the
>> services that they provide.
>>
>> 2)In an open access world, it would be much easier
to determine the
>> costs associated with publishing in a given
journal. Adding to the
>> problems described in the point above, the
subscription-based
>> publishing model makes it nearly impossible for
anyone apart from a
>> journal's publisher to know how much revenue is
collected per article.
>> Since one cannot easily tell how many subscribers a
journal has, it is
>> impossible to know the 'cost' (whether it is paid
on the author's side
>> or on the reader's side) of publishing in a
particular journal. So
>> even the most conscientious of authors have a
difficult time avoiding
>> 'overpriced' journals in the subscription world.
>>
>> 3)In an open access world, the barrier to entry for
new publishers, or
>> new journals from existing publishers, will be less
than in the
>> subscription world. Since a subscription-based
journal must attract a
>> certain number of subscribers in order to break
even, which generally
>> takes years even for the most successful of titles,
it is very
>> difficult to establish new journals to compete with
well-established
>> titles, even if the new journal provides a
significantly better
>> service at a lower price. Moreover, having a small
number of
>> subscribers means that a new journal will have a
very limited
>> readership, which makes it even more difficult to
get a new
>> subscription-based title off-the-ground. In an open
access world, if
>> authors in a particular field do not have any
reasonably priced
>> journals in which to publish, it will not be too
long until some
>> 'greedy' publisher comes along and creates a new
journal that can
>> provide a better value for these authors.
>>
>> While open access publishers will be just as
concerned with the
>> financial success of their journals as
subscription-based publishers,
>> their ability to charge more than their service is
worth will be
>> greatly reduced. While increased access is
certainly the main benefit
>> of open access publishing in the short run, a more
efficient market
>> for scholarly publishing may prove to be its
greatest benefit in the
>> long run.
>>
>> Because of the reasons mentioned above, I have
mixed feelings about
>> the Wellcome Trust and CERN policies towards 'gold'
open access
>> publishing. The hidden benefit of 'gold' open
access is that it
>> provides a solution to many of the problems that
exist within the
>> subscription market. Unfortunately, neither the
policy of the Wellcome
>> Trust nor that of CERN's SCOAP3 have a mechanism
for increasing the
>> competition between publishers, so one cannot
expect that they will
>> lead to greater efficiency in the publishing
market. If funders offer
>> publishers a certain amount of money for each
article they publish
>> (say $3,000), publishers will have no incentive to
charge any less
>> than that amount.
>>
>> The best approach for research funders to take is
simply to allow
>> their grant recipients to include publication
charges in their grant
>> requests, just as they do for expenses related to
attending a
>> conference. This way, researchers will be able to
choose how much of
>> their research funds they would like to spend on
publishing in a
>> journal, funds which could otherwise be spent on
conferences, graduate
>> students, equipment, etc... Only by making the
costs of a journal
>> visible to authors can we expect to see a more
efficient market, since
>> authors (not research funders, university
departments, librarians, or
>> readers) choose where articles are published.
>>
>> As Matt said in his email:
>>
>> Under an open access publishing model, you
immediately have a much
>> more effective market. The customer (the research
community) can
>> choose the publication service that offers the best
value, ensuring
>> that prices are kept down. This kind of
'substitutability' generally
>> doesn't exist with the subscription model - hence
the problem of
>> journal inflation.
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Paul Peters
>> Head of Business Development
>> Hindawi Publishing Corporation
>> http://www.hindawi.com
>> -------------------------------
|
