Hugh Jarvis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] posted some thoughts on Internet
Archaeology's move to subscriptions, which were (as Hugh said) off-the-cuff.
I think they were a little too off-the-cuff to pass without some comment .

I think the main issue here is related to who is paying to make material
available on the internet, why, and what the actual product is.

Taking Hugh's alternative model:

> For an alternative approach, I publish an online "journal" , a
> non-serial database-driven approach called the Anthropology Review
> Database (ARD) (wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/). This is a "zero-budegt"
> publication, paid by university overhead, department
> generosity (mailing
> costs for books), and volunteer generosity.

The phrase "zero budget" in the instance is clearly a misnomer. It is
essential a "displaced budget", contributed to from a number of sources and
for a variety of reasons. Elements of the costs incurred are written off
against these sources as the project clearly gives a valuable return. This
need not be a particularly tangible return (and certainly not a monetary
return) but the project is obviously perceived of as a "good thing" which
provides benefit to those who invest in it (eg the University gains
publicity and goodwill, and supports a worthwhile endeavour; the department
likewise, whilst also providing an extracurricular project to aid staff and
student development; individuals gain useful experience and a warm moral
glow from giving something back to the discipline) (All off-the-cuff
possibilities and not judgements on the ARD project by the way!)

Clearly the projects overheads are low and the return on the investment from
all parties concerned is considered justified. The Internet Archaeology
model is different in that the emphasis is placed upon the user (whomever
that may be) paying for the resource they use (and hopefully value!). This
has always been the case for this journal as the initial funding from eLib
means that it was essentially paid for by the UK higher education community.

The obligatory relationship between the user and provider is entirely
different here. It involves a contract between the two and subsequently the
journal is obliged to fulfil its obligations to its users.

Hugh's suggestions regarding voluntary contributions from institutions are
interesting, but the idea of persuading departmental fund managers to
contribute a slice of their budgets to a cooperative project which may gain
enough funds to continue, but may not, isn't workable in the real world.
Those spending in this area have to be accountable for their spending, and
the only acceptable way at present is to establish traditional
consumer/supplier relationships.

In Internet Archaeology's case this also works the other way. For those who
underwrite the journal's overheads to continue to do so, the journal must
produce sound business plans that are financially viable. I don't think
"we've asked for some universities and some friends to chip in and we'll see
what we come up with" would do the trick! And the overheads in managing the
calculation and refunds of overages, or forwarding of excess funds to an
endowment fund, or the calculation of reduced rates for existing subscribers
would probably doom any such scheme to a mire of bureaucracy.

To say that "fee-based publications are no more financially viable than free
ones" is to miss the point. The point is that publications that have
sustainable income sources are financially viable, and those that don't
aren't.

Internet Archaeology has considerable needs if it is to continue the ground
breaking work it has done in electronic publication. To maintain and add to
a quality resource requires considerable editorial input, including
extensive use of peer-reviewing processes. Using the medium to it's full
potential requires technical innovation and maintenance of hardware and
software. Ensuring that the journal is one of "academic record" requires
investment in comprehensive archiving and migration (which involves
considerably more in this case than placing the article texts in an
archive). These are overheads that cannot be ignored or written off as
subsidiary to the main operation.

It may be uncomfortable - but at the moment the only really viable way to
meet these needs securely is to expect the end users to pay. In Internet
Archaeology's case this is rightly biased towards making the larger
institutions subsidise individual users. But I suspect that we may all have
to come to terms with the fact that the free internet is not sustainable in
areas such as archaeology, where there simply isn't a sufficient scale of
commercial interest to provide the necessary advertising or sponsorship
revenues. This may not be the case for all initiatives, but if we want to
use the medium in more interesting ways than simple dissemination of text,
we have to accept that the costs will be higher.

Jonathan

Jonathan Bateman
Council for British Archaeology
[log in to unmask]
http://www.britarch.ac.uk


> From: Hugh Jarvis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 28 November 2001 19:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The demise of the freely accessible e-journal
>
>
> I've been reading all of this with some interest. Some off-the-cuff
> remarks...
>
> Paid access turns away all but the most determined of users -
> this needs
> testing but I doubt many would disagree this is a major obstacle for
> switching to a subscription model.
>
> The result is that non-priviledged users (those not at institutions,
> with lower incomes, outside the first world...) lose access to
> information, and are cut out of information/knowledge
> networks. Look how
> many of us just on this list are unwilling to pay the fee.
>
> Fee-based publications are no more financially viable than free ones.
> The large commercial journals have only met their needs by greatly
> increasing their prices - does a journal like IA wish to start this
> cycle..?
>
> Other funding solutions should be pursued whenever possible. Sliding
> scale makes sense, but even more so, what about encouraging
> institutions
> to voluntarily pay for access, as well as societies, governments,
> funding agencies, and also individuals. Make the subscription a
> membership, perhaps like a co-op (with special privileges..?), that
> changes as more people join. As the overall costs are paid,
> the members
> perhaps get reimbursed for overages, or benefit from a reduced
> subscription the next year (while newer members pay slightly more)...
> A percentage of each subscription should go towards an endowment.
>
> This is all pretty fuzzy, but the point is to meet the overhead of the
> journal in as user-friendly a way as possible, and not
> restrict access.
>
> And work towards minimizing costs wherever possible. For
> example, people
> usually spend way too much money on web development for
> minimal or even
> negative returns!
>
> For an alternative approach, I publish an online "journal" , a
> non-serial database-driven approach called the Anthropology Review
> Database (ARD) (wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/). This is a "zero-budegt"
> publication, paid by university overhead, department
> generosity (mailing
> costs for books), and volunteer generosity.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Hugh
>
>
> Hugh Jarvis (PhD, MLS)
> Cybrarian/Web Information Coordinator
> Creative Services - University at Buffalo
> 330 Crofts Hall, Buffalo, New York, USA 14260-7015
> Tel: 716 645-5000 x1428
> Fax: 716 646-3765
> Email: [log in to unmask] (preferred)
>