|
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. ![]() 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 revenue1 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 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? 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? Post a comment |
RSS Feed
Links: (formerly Malice Aforethought) me spousal unit Bloglines account Simpy account Connotea account OpenWetWare userpage googlebombs for good Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade abortion Jew Seldovia Herald blogroll: Archives: March 2010 February 2010 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 |
Damn! Now I don't know whether to comment here or on FF!