OA vs TA costs: I think I have finally got this straight.

I made some errors in the last few posts, making the information somewhat scrambled -- my apologies. Here is what I hope is a clear picture of what we know about the relative costs of OA and TA publishing.

1. The NIH estimates that it pays $100 million/year in author-side charges, and supports the production of some 80,000 scholarly articles; that's an average of $1250/article.

Update: Peter Suber points out that some fraction of that 80,000 articles did not use NIH funds, either because they were published in no-fee journals or because the authors found other ways to pay. I can't think of any way to estimate the actual number of articles the $100 million paid for in order to adjust the estimated fee/article, but it's worth remembering that it's an underestimate.

2. Björk et al. found that less than 5% of all articles worldwide are available through no-embargo Gold OA. We don't know what proportion of the NIH's $100 million went to Gold OA fees, nor what the average such fee might be. In order to be conservative, let's assume that the average Gold OA fee is triple the average TA fee (it almost certainly isn't that high). Then (if that 5% is evenly distributed) the NIH paid for (0.95x80000=) 76,000 articles at $average and 4,000 articles at 3x$average, bringing the average author-side charge for a TA article to $1136.

3. Philip Davis' 2004 library costs spreadsheet estimates the average subscription charge per scholarly article at between $970 and $1750, depending on what proportion of the library serials budget is allocated to scholarly publications.

subscriptionperarticle.jpg

Davis' original study estimated this proportion at 50% (on what basis I don't know), but I think the real value is closer to 90%. My reasoning is based on my observation (see Table 2) that the average unit cost of a curated list of scholarly journals from UCOSC is about ten times the average unit cost of "all serials" from ACRL, ARL and NCES datasets. If that result is broadly representative it means that scholarly journals must contribute either a small fraction or the vast majority of the cost (see here for a brief explanation).

So that gives an estimated fee of between $2106 and $2886 per toll-access article. That money isn't all coming from the same place -- the NIH is paying author-side fees and libraries are paying subscriptions -- but it's all going to the same place, publisher coffers.

I've added a current (under)estimate of NIH costs for author-side fees, adjusted for a 2006 estimate of %OA by article, to a 2004 estimate of subscription fee/article, but I'm confident that the real cost (if I could get up-to-the-minute figures for all inputs) would be in the same ballpark.

Sure puts one-time, up-front Gold OA fees in a different perspective, doesn't it? Here's a reminder (stupid Impact Factors in brackets just because I know a lot of people still think they mean something even though they don't):


average revenue
1 per toll-access article .............. $2100 - $2900

BioMed Central
Genome Biology (6.6) ..................................... $2250
BMC Biology (5.1) ........................................ $1950
Molecular Cancer (3.7) ................................... $1710
Retrovirology (4.0) ...................................... $1390
J. of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (1.9) ............ $1195

Hindawi
Comparative and Functional Genomics (1.6) ................ $850
J. of Biomedicine and Biotechnology (1.9) ................ $975
Mediators of Inflammation (1.2) .......................... $975
Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications (1.0) ............ $700

Public Library of Science
PLos Biology (13.5), PLoS Medicine (12.6) ................ $2850
PLoS Pathogens (9.3), Neglected Tropical Diseases (n/a),
Genetics (8.7) and Comp Biol (6.2) ....................... $2200
PLoS ONE (n/a) ........................................... $1300

Other
J. Medical Internet Research (3.6, best in field) ........ $1590
Biological Procedures Online (1.2) ....................... $1250
J. of Clinical Investigation (16.9) ..................... ~$2500



1 Update: since D0r0th34 has already pointed out one dumb thing I did, neglecting other revenue streams available to TA but not OA publishers, I think that rather than continually update this post I'll just go ahead and embed the FriendFeed discussion right here:






Comments

Damn! Now I don't know whether to comment here or on FF!

Comment number: 019592   Posted by: Bob O'H on June 21, 2009 09:59 PM from IP: 88.114.150.30

Re: traditional publishers and retaining revenue. This may be important to the TA publishers, but what about the rest of us?

Scholarly societies and independent publishers with pricing at or just above the cost-recovery level do have a strong argument for retaining revenue in order to continue to exist. Even here, though, watch for inflation, as we are asking people how much they think they should be paid, and most are still publishing in print, which has nothing to do with open access.

As for the highly profitable for-profits - with almost unheard-of profit margins of 30% or better, even in a time of economic crisis - who says it is important for them to retain their revenue? It is understandable that they would like to continue this situation, but why should scholars agree? Would it not be better to redirect some of this revenue to revitalize publishing in the humanities and social sciences and monographs - areas whose traditional revenue streams have been diverted in recent years to create these profits? Why not put some of this revenue into developing open data services, preserving electronic information, and so forth?

Comment number: 019615   Posted by: Heather Morrison on July 20, 2009 01:51 PM from IP: 142.58.215.201

Re: traditional publishers and retaining revenue. This may be important to the TA publishers, but what about the rest of us?

Scholarly societies and independent publishers with pricing at or just above the cost-recovery level do have a strong argument for retaining revenue in order to continue to exist. Even here, though, watch for inflation, as we are asking people how much they think they should be paid, and most are still publishing in print, which has nothing to do with open access.

As for the highly profitable for-profits - with almost unheard-of profit margins of 30% or better, even in a time of economic crisis - who says it is important for them to retain their revenue? It is understandable that they would like to continue this situation, but why should scholars agree? Would it not be better to redirect some of this revenue to revitalize publishing in the humanities and social sciences and monographs - areas whose traditional revenue streams have been diverted in recent years to create these profits? Why not put some of this revenue into developing open data services, preserving electronic information, and so forth?

Comment number: 019616   Posted by: Heather Morrison on July 20, 2009 01:51 PM from IP: 142.58.215.201

Post a comment

















RSS Feed

CC0
To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this weblog. This work is published from the United States. Further information.


Links:
(formerly Malice Aforethought)
me
spousal unit
Bloglines account
Simpy account
Connotea account
OpenWetWare userpage
monthly irregular column on 3QuarksDaily


Please sign the petition in support of the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate

googlebombs for good
Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade
abortion
Jew
Seldovia Herald


blogroll:

Archives:
January 2010
October 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003









Design thrown together haphazardly by frykitty.
Powered by the inimitable MovableType.