As pointed out, some publishers might try to use the change of policy to increase their revenue. But there's nothing in principle in the change to open access that necessarily causes this.
The big shift, from subscription journals to open access, is from reader payment to author payment. In so far as this is a transfer of costs from academic readers to academic authors, it should be cost neutral for academia as a whole. But that doesn't exhaust all the readers.
The other aspect of the change is that industry, as consumers of research output, contribute to the costs of peer review by journal subscriptions. A change to open access subsidises the application of research, by putting the whole cost of peer review on authors. That's a reasonable policy, but only if the cost is budgeted for, not if it comes from other budgets in an unplanned way.
regards,
Chris
____________________________________________
Chris Morris
[log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
Mobile: 07921-717915
Skype: chrishgmorris
http://pims.structuralbiology.eu/
http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
Daresbury Lab, Daresbury, Warrington, UK, WA4 4AD
|