Peter
You made a blanket generalisation - 'OA would mean a loss
of
subscription, advertising, sponsorship, and reprint sales'
- and
I gave specific examples of cases where that is not true.
Of the
four points you explain the first away as non-typical, for
the
second you make a convincing case, the third is not
coherently
addressed, and you agree with the forth.
Let's take the second point. In a sense it is not really
worth
arguing about as only a tiny fraction of the 20,000 or so
peer-review journals published world-wide make any
significant
advertising revenue. (But for that tiny fraction it is,
obviously, very important!) Of those that do, some (the
Natures
and Sciences) would continue to attract advertising as a lot
of
their content is not the target of OA - news, commentary,
etc.
For the rest, well, first it is not true that advertisers
only
advertise along with subscription content. The bond Times
online is free to readers and awash with advertising.
Secondly,
versions of papers may exist in other repositories, but
publishers add unique value do they not? Surely, if that
value
is valuable readers will come to publishers' sites and if
the
readers match the profile demanded by potential advertisers
then
those advertisers will advertise. (I guess - Peter, of
course,
knows much more about advertisers than I do.)
So, from your original statement we have teased out one area
where open access may (but not certainly) have an adverse
effect.
How wonderful it would have been if that subtly had been in
the
original post rather than generalities that fail to stand to
scrutiny.
David
PS I'm intrigued by 'OA content is as exclusive as tap
water.'
There are many people making good money supplying tap water!
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Banks [mailto:pbanks diabetes.org]
Sent: 23 April 2006 01:22
To: david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk; liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: NFP publishing
If Exhibit A of the effect of OA on subscriptions is the
publications program of the Indian Academy of Sciences, I
don't
think the jury will be convinced. The price of these
journals is
extremely low ($100-$150 institutional/$30 or so
individual). At
these prices (cheaper than the New Yorker) you can afford to
get
the journal as a convenience for subway reading.
Unfortunately,
no highly cited mainstream journal in the US or Europe could
be
produced for these prices, so I don't think you can draw
any
meaningful conclusion from this example.
As for advertising....advertising depends on exclusivity.
You are
not selling a journal, you are selling exlusive access to a
unique readership. The advertiser can reach this market
though
only one channel, the journal. The premise of OA is that
scientific content is NOT unique to a journal. It is in IRs,
at
NIH, on Dr. Jones's home page, on AOL, wherever. Anyone and
everyone can ready it. Audit statements from ABC or BPA list
the
average amount a reader has paid for subscription; from an
advertiser's perspective, the more paid, the better. The $0
under
an OA scheme isn't exactly what advertisers are after. The
editorially promiscuous aren't generally a prized audience.
Sponsorship poses the same problem. Selling anything demands
exclusivity; OA content is as exclusive as tap water.
As for reprints, you are correct that there may still be a
market
for them, though a diminished one. Pharmaceutical companies
are
not stupid--they know that something with the imprint of a
respected journal has more credibility than something they
themselves produce, which is discounted from the start as
self-serving. They will continue to support reprints, though
will
less vigor now that a reprint is as close as the nearest
laser
printer.
If you intend to prove me wrong on all four counts, you need
to
come up with better evidence.
Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanksdiabetes.org
>>> david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk 04/21/06
10:56 PM >>>
Peter writes:
>'OA would mean a loss of subscription, advertising,
sponsorship,
>and reprint sales'
Would it? Some open access journals are seeing increased
print
subscriptions (e.g. those of the Indian Academy of
Sciences). I'm
not sure we have much evidence on the advertising front, but
wouldn't an advertiser be as willing to advertise in a
high-quality online open access journal as they would in a
high-quality online subscription journal?
Sponsorship? Well, a survey of the journals listed in the
DOAJ
noted that less than half relied on author payments, the
rest had
their costs met by sponsorship - either direct or indirect.
So
it looks like sponsorship is alive and well in OA.
(Interestingly, we are often being told that by relying on
sponsorship OA is not a 'viable' business model. Now we
are
being told there is no sponsorship in OA. I'm afraid you
can't
have it both ways!)
As for reprint sales, I have heard anecdotal evidence of OA
publishers being asked for reprints. It may not be logical,
but
there are pharmaceutical companies out there who would
rather get
their 10,000 copies from the publisher than do it
themselves. (If
any OA publisher would be willing to firm-up my anecdote
with
firm evidence I would be grateful.)
So, in summary, I'm afraid I think you are wrong on all
four of
your points.
Best wishes
David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
|