When we met recently with a leader of the SCOAP3 initiative,
he
mentioned that one of the incentives for libraries to join
is
that the combined SCOAP3 group of subscribers will be large
enough to negotiate with the publishers and to reduce the
overall
subscription fees we pay by as much as 2/3. This seemed
hugely
optimistic to me, as none of the publishers listed below,
whatever their $/article, is making anywhere approaching 2/3
surplus. And, in fact, societies like the APS note that
they
have "no fat to trim."
Anyhow, this led to the SCOAP staff's statement that it
should be
possible for publishers to bring their costs down that much,
through additional savings in their publication costs, and
the
SCOAP3 negotiations will push publishers to achieve these.
In
turn, we suggested that if such low cost, high quality could
be
achieved, it might be useful for SCOAP3/CERN to demonstrate
that
by starting a journal that proves the concept.
We've not heard back on this matter from the SCOAP3 group
yet;
would welcome any comments from readers of this list.
Ann Okerson/Yale Library
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gene Sprouse wrote:
> SCOAP3 is an initiative to convert all of the major
high energyphysics (HEP)
> journals to Open Access. It would redirect
libraryfunds for HEP journals to
> a consortium that would then negotiatewith publishers
in order to reach the
> OA goals. Although theSCOAP3 initiative sails under
the banner of Open
> Access, itbrings in its wake the prospect of reducing
the aggregate cost
> tolibraries of HEP journals. The costs of the 5 target
journals arelisted
> below:
>
> JOURNAL $/article $/citation Publisher
> Phys. Rev. D 1.69 0.47 APS
> JHEP 1.79 0.43 SISSA
> Phys. Lett. B 10.98 2.68 Elsevier
> Euro. Phys. Jour. C 18.71 7.06 Springer
> Nucl. Phys. B 32.33 6.20 Elsevier
>
> (Data from www.journalprices.com)
>
> To raise $3.7M, the US part of the $14M of consortium
funding,SCOAP3 is
> negotiating with US institutions involved in
HEPresearch. We estimate that
> only about 1/3 of the US subscriptionrevenue for
Physical Review D comes from
> these institutions, soif only they are involved, each
must be asked to triple
> what itnow pays for PRD, presumably with offsetting
savings from
> otherjournals. Of course SCOAP3 would also benefit
> non-contributinginstitutions and the general public.
>
> APS has a mandate to publish in all physics
disciplines. As aservice to the
> physics community we have kept our prices as lowas
possible, to encourage
> broad distribution of our content.However, if we are to
continue to provide
> quality peer review,distribution, and archiving of
physics research, we must
> recoverour costs. The current subscription-based
funding model, thoughfar
> from perfect, has provided adequate and stable funding,
inharmony with the
> arXiv and with our generous self-archivingprovisions.
An obvious concern is
> that once the journals arefreely available, some
libraries might divert their
> now voluntarycontributions from SCOAP3 to other more
pressing needs,
> becausedoing so would bring no immediate consequences.
We are
> gravelyconcerned about the difficulty of reassembling
our subscriptionmodel
> were SCOAP3 to fail.
>
> The funding and sustainability of the SCOAP3 model have
yet to bedeveloped
> and demonstrated. If they can be, then APS would
bewilling to make PRD freely
> available on our site.
>
> Gene D. Sprouse
> Editor-in-Chief, American Physical Society
>
> Joseph W. Serene
> Treasurer and Publisher, American Physical Society
|
