We want to think Fred Friend, Travis Brooks, and Michael
Fosmire
(the latter two on PAMNET) for their thoughtful replies to
our
previous post, and to comment briefly on some of the issues
that
they have raised.
Fred states that "the risk from a SCOAP3 model is no
greater and
arguably less than under the present model." While we
appreciate
his emphasis on the strengths of an international
consortium, we
think that he underestimates one crucial difference between
subscription models and SCOAP3: in the former if one does
not pay
for a subscription one no longer has access to the journals,
while in the latter non-payment has no immediate
consequence.
We think that lack of access to a journal as important as
PRD
provides a strong deterrent to non-payment, at least in
institutions with major HEP research efforts.
Michael says "This is one reason APS has introduced
tiered
pricing...to slow the loss of subscriptions from smaller
institutions...and I think by and large the research
institutions
accept and support the fact that they are already bearing
the
brunt of the costs of publication." While Michael is
correct
that major research institutions deserve credit for
accepting
higher subscription prices in order to keep APS journals
accessible to smaller institutions, he is not correct in
suggesting that major research institutions currently bear
the
brunt of publication costs for APS journals. In fact, APS
tiered
pricing has been remarkably successful in maintaining our
small
subscribers, with the result that almost half of the US
subscription revenue for PRD comes from approximately 200
subscriptions at APS Tier 1 and 2 institutions (the smallest
and
least research-intensive places). This very surprising fact
has
major implications both for the start- up funding of SCOAP3
and
for the challenge of recovering should SCOAP3 fail.
Finally, while we agree with Michael that our own small OA
journals, and especially PRST- AB, provide an interesting
test
for the SCOAP3 model, we also want to emphasize the need for
caution when interpreting such experiments, because of the
uncertainties with allocating various overhead costs to a
small
journal operating under the umbrella of a much larger
publishing
enterprise. Nevertheless, using our best judgment of these
allocated costs, we find that despite steady and generous
support
from the accelerator community, PRST- AB has never run in
the
black. There are many possible explanations for this result
(e.g., perhaps we have not been sufficiently aggressive in
seeking support), and one obviously should be careful about
extrapolating results from small experiments.
Gene D. Sprouse
Editor- in- Chief, American Physical Society
Joseph W. Serene
Treasurer and Publisher, American Physical Society
>>> ""FrederickFriend""
<ucylfjf ucl.ac.uk> 12/05/07 7:45 PM >>>
I applaud the willingness of APS to support the SCOAP3
initiative
if the right conditions are met. This new model could
provide
better value for the academic community and a successful new
business model for academic publishers. Gene Sprouse is
right to
point to the risk that "some libraries might divert
their now
voluntary contributions from SCOAP3 to more pressing
needs", but
that risk is already there and is already damaging the
income of
some learned societies. Some libraries are diverting funds
from
individual journal subscriptions in order to maintain
"big deals"
with the major commercial publishers.
The risk from a SCOAP3 model is no greater and arguably less
than
under the present model. The strength in the SCOAP3 model to
counter the risk comes from the international nature of the
alliance between funding organizations and libraries, a
strength
which will be greater than that in the present model, in
which
financial support for journals comes primarily from the
library
sector and on a national rather than an international
basis.
Fred Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
|
