Phil, it is good to hear, if I interpret your message
correctly,
that you're not categorically opposed to the argument that
publishing is part of the research process, and thus should
be
paid out of grants. But then I don't quite understand your
criticism of an authorside- paid system. I immediately
accept
that authors do not want to pay. That's why I argue that
the
authorside payment should be part of the infrastructural
provision, just as the library is. You'd get exactly the
same
answer, i.e. 'no', if you were to ask them to pay for the
subscriptions you have in the library, or even to pay by
usage of
the journals you subscribe to. Especially out of their own
pocket. The library, however, is paid out of their grants
(the
58% overhead), though they may not quite realise that. So,
in my
book, it would be strange to even suggest that authorside
payments would have to come out of their personal funds. I
think
that's not what you're saying, but it's not entirely
clear that
if you don't, what the problem actually is (other than that
what
has to come out of overheads at Cornell may be higher than
at
other universities, who, as Heather Morrison pointed out,
have
also less grant money coming in and thus less to fund their
overhead).
I'm very pleased to hear, too, that Cornell already uses
low
energy light bulbs. Since your remark about mowing lawns
leads me
to think that there might be appreciable expanses of grass
at
Cornell, could I also suggest ground source heat pumps
(GSHPs) to
heat/cool the buildings? Although, an advanced institution
like
yours probably has that, too, already.
Best wishes,
Jan Velterop
On 27 Apr 2006, at 14:30, Phil Davis wrote:
> Jan, you seem to assume that critics of a producer-pays
system are
> categorically opposed to the argument that publishing
is part of
> the research process, and thus should be paid out of
grants or the
> author's pocket. I am not arguing about how
publishing "ought" to
> be funded. I am simply providing evidence that authors
are
> generally opposed to having to pay much (if any) to
publish. If
> citing a journal in Physics is not enough evidence, let
me provide
> more:
>
> Late last summer I contacted your company (Springer) to
find out
> how many authors had opted to pay the $3,000 to make
their article
> OA. Their response: 5
>
> In 2004, I polled every Cornell researcher who had
published in
> Nucleic Acids Research in the past five years whether
they were
> willing to pay the full costs of publishing (it was
$1,500 at that
> time, now $1,900), which would allow the library to get
out of
> subsidizing authors through subscription costs. The
alternative
> was for the library to pay a "membership"
cost which lowered author-
> rates to $500. None of the authors said that they were
willing to
> pay the full amount but were willing to pay the reduced
amount.
> $500 is comparable to the page charges levied by good
society
> journals in the life sciences.
>
> Now, funding publishing on the money my institution
saves through
> using low energy light bulbs is a fantastic idea,
although we
> already have them. I once argued that the money saved
when
> individuals cancelled their personal subscriptions
should be sent
> to the library so that it can help pay our
institutional
> subscription costs. What do you think the likelihood
of this
> happening?
>
> -Phil Davis
|