I agree with Richard about the cost dilemma and Phil Davis has attempted
this calculation (http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/236 ).
Phil Davis also writes on the scholarly kitchen blog when open access
was voted down at the University of Maryland (probably the first
academic institution to do so) and he says "The assumptions that open
access publishing is both cheaper and more sustainable than the
traditional subscription model are featured in many of these mandates.
But they remain just that — assumptions. In reality, the data show just
the opposite. Institutions like the University of Maryland would pay
much more under an author-pays model, as would most research-intensive
universities, and the rise in author processing charges (APCs) rivals
the inflation felt at any time under the subscription model. Don’t get
me wrong. I’m not opposed to mandates based on moral claims. I view
healthcare as a moral right and something that should not be reduced
entirely to the discourse of economics. But many of the mandates for
open access are based on economic claims — claims that are either
baseless or contradicted by evidence. If there is any moral
responsibility, it is for the crafters of these mandates to stop
disguising moral mandates in economic clothing. The data simply do not
support this, and I hope that at least some faculty will see through the
disguise."
The post is at
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/04/28/umaryland-faculty-vote-no-oa/
Suhail
On 3/25/2012 9:40 PM, Richard Saitz wrote:
> Colleagues,
> I appreciate the thoughtful (open...) exchange of ideas on this topic.
>
> One thing I haven't seen fleshed out so much is what the cost of publishing
> a research article should be and who should pay for it. It seems to me
> there is a cost associated with it and although it is easy to say a charge
> to an author seems "expensive" I would be interested in knowing what the
> cost is.
>
> I anticipate the answer should be related to what we expect of published
> articles. Some very high quality journals have statistical and illustration
> editors and editors who are paid. In addition to infrastructure for
> manuscript management and editing, and peer review there are production
> steps and indexing and archiving all of which require a fair amount of human
> skilled capital. Maintaining and operating a server indefinitely with useful
> search functions etc is not a small or inexpensive endeavor. If we add up
> those costs, they should be related to any fees charged for publication. I
> don't know if that exercise would lead to a conclusion that the charges we
> are seeing are high or low or about right.
>
> My conclusion is that good quality journal publishing costs money and
> someone has to pay for it if we want it. So then the question turns to who
> should pay? If the research is funded (public or private) perhaps those
> funds should include the cost of disseminating the results. If not funded,
> then someone still has to pay. It can be the author, or the reader. There
> don't seem to be too many other options (other options are fancier versions
> of author or reader--like institutions or governments or groups of
> authors/readers). In any case, it doesn't strike me that OA vs traditional
> subscription is clearly right or wrong. They are two different ways of
> paying for something that costs money. We should probably move the debate
> to the benefits and harms of both based on evidence...
>
> Best
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ginny Barbour
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Perils of open access
>
> Dear All - I'd like to add my voice to Neil's and encourage anyone
> interested in this topic to join the webinar next Wednesday (register at
> [log in to unmask]).
> There is a lot of misunderstanding about what open access is which I hope we
> can discuss. More importantly, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding
> about what the potential benefits of OA are (ie, not just free access but
> also reuse) - and how such a model really offers opportunities not possible
> in subscription based models of publishing. But it is especially critical
> that we do ensure that better dissemination does not mean that there is less
> participation from authors without access to funds to pay for publishing -
> ie that barriers to access do not turn into barriers to publish. PLoS and
> other OA publishers are very keen to ensure this is not the case (and as
> Trish Groves noted earlier many have waiver policies in place for example)
> but we need to hear from all sides of the debate as we plan how best OA
> publishing can serve the needs of the entire community.
>
> Best wishes
> Ginny Barbour
>
> Dr Virginia Barbour
>
> Chief Editor, PLoS Medicine
> Medicine Editorial Director, PLoS
> Secretary, Committee on Publication Ethics
> e: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
|