RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)

David,

There are many things to be said about this, but I'd like to
pick out
one thing you say that may easily lead to misunderstandings.
You include
in costs to sustain a journal "the costs of authors
writing their
papers". Presuming you're mainly talking about primary
research
journals, and not journals that publish mainly commissioned
review
articles, that surely is not a cost that should be taken
into account.
Research authors are, in contrast to journalists or
professional science
writers, *not* providing services to journals, but journals
are
providing services to research authors. They need to publish
in
peer-reviewed journals in order to satisfy the demands of
their
profession. Publish or perish, remember?

By including "the costs of authors writing their
papers" (costs not
reimbursed), you are in danger of repeating the oft-given,
but
erroneous, impression that authors 'give away' their
articles. Jolly
philanthropical of them, but they don't need journals if
they want to
'give away'; they can just put their writings on a blog or
in a
repository. The reality is that they want to publish in
journals not
because they want to give away anything, but because they
want to obtain
something: the professional credibility that comes with a
formal
publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

If one wants journals to be able to provide that
professional
credibility, then the efforts and costs those journals need
to make to
do so, need to be properly funded. In an area mainly driven
by readers
who clamour to see the research (a 'read-or-rot' area),
subscriptions
make sense; in an area mainly driven by the need to publish
(a
'publish-or-perish' area, arguably the most common in
science), article
processing charges for open access publishing makes sense;
and in an
area mainly driven by political or other overarching
societal concerns
('fly-or-flounder'?), direct subsidies make sense.

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of David Prosser
> Sent: 12 July 2007 23:32
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)
>
> Sally
>
> Yes, costs have to be covered irrespective of the
access model.
> Yes, some open access journals rely to some extent on
> sponsorship to cover the costs, but then so do some
> subscription-based journals.  For example, you will
recall
> the survey that you commissioned for ALPSP that showed
that a
> third of society-published journals surveyed made a
loss -
> they were being sponsored by their societies.
>
> And yes, some open access journals are supported
indirectly,
> with institutions picking-up some or all of the costs
of
> time, office accommodation and services, and computing
> resources, etc.  In exactly the same way as for some
> subscription-based journals some or all of these costs
are
> picked-up by the institutions.  (Of course, some
journals pay
> for these costs - both subscription-based and open
access.)
>
> As for opportunity costs, let's admit that the vast
majority
> of scholarly journals rely on these 'hidden' costs. 
From the
> 'costs' of authors writing their papers, to the 'costs'
of
> referees reviewing papers (mostly for free), to the
'costs'
> of Editors (and I know that in some fields some Editors
are
> paid well, but in others they go either unpaid or
receive
> honoraria far below their 'hourly rate').  I'm not sure
why
> you consider these costs important for open access
journals
> but not for journals with other access models.
>
> So, we have a variety of revenue streams - for both
> subscription-based and open access journals - and a
variety
> of subsidy-levels through the academic community
picking-up
> opportunity costs and what might be called overhead
costs -
> again, both for subscription-based and open access
journals.
> We appear to be creating a false dichotomy (as with
the
> 'barrier to authors' argument) that does not reflect
the true
> spectrum that actually cuts across access models.
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk
> http://www.sparceurope.org

>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sally
> Morris (Morris
> Associates)
> Sent: 10 July 2007 21:06
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Correction (RE: Thatcher vs. Harnad)
>
> Open Access journals that don't charge authors (and
some that
> do) are being paid for somewhere else.  It may be
explicit,
> as with the Moore Foundation sponsorship for PLoS or
that of
> Ishikawa for Evidence-Based Complementary and
Alternative
> Medicine.  Or it may be implicit, where the editor's
parent
> organization is covering the costs of time (salaries
and
> associated costs), office accommodation and services,
and
> computing resources.  Some naively (in my view) argue
that
> these costs do not exist since the people, office and
> computer were there anyway - but what about opportunity
cost?
>  They could all be doing other things.
>
> I don't think anyone has compared the fortunes and
reputation
> of those OA journals that do and don't charge authors. 
It
> would be interesting to see whether there is, in fact,
any
> difference...
>
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> Email:  sallymorris-assocs.demon.co.uk