From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:02:44 +0000

Dear Joe,

Fair comment, and I would say that eLife is also making a pitch to
secure a powerful position in the biomed OA journal market. And my
point about Sage was not intended as a criticism. It is just part of
the reality in the current world of change.

With best wishes,

Fred Friend

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:52:56 -0500

I'm curious, Fred:  When eLife announced that it would be waiving its
authors' charges for the time being, was that also "an early grab for
authors"?  I recall cheering and only cheering when eLife was
announced and its early plans revealed.  Is Sage being held to a
different standard?

Joe Esposito


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:03:58 +0000
>
> I echo Nathan Hosburgh's note of caution about this move by Sage. As
> well as the points Nathan makes, we must remember that publishers are
> competing for market share, especially at a time of change in the
> market. To me the $99 offer reads like a traditional loss-leader to
> make an early grab for authors and establish Sage Open's position in
> this market. Obviously we would all like to see competition in the
> level of APCs but I shall be very surprised if $99 sets a standard or
> is maintained for more than a year or so.
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Hosburgh, Nathan
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:02
> Subject: RE: Sage Open price now $99
>
> Regarding the comparison with PLOS:
>
> - PLOS charges an author fee of $1,350
> - they offer partial/full fee waivers in certain circumstances
> - they are a non-profit and their main revenue source is from publication fees
>
> http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/authors/
>
> Sage is a for-profit publisher and I imagine their main revenue source
> is subscriptions.  Sage Open is one OA journal from a publisher of
> many non-OA journals.  Sage publishes more than 700 journals spanning
> the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Technology, and
> Medicine.  Only a few of these journal titles appear to be full Gold
> OA.  Sage offers 'Sage Choice', an OA option for authors who wish to
> make their research articles freely available upon publication - this
> appears to be available for any Sage journal.
>
> "For the majority of journals published by SAGE the fee per article is
> $3,000USD/£1600GPB in Science, Technology and Medical fields, and
> $1,500/£800 in the Humanities and Social Sciences."
> http://www.uk.sagepub.com/sagechoice.sp
>
> So, it seems Sage is extending this one OA journal with very
> reasonable publishing fees as a sign of goodwill/PR tool.  The $3,000
> article fee would probably be a better comparison with the $1,350
> charged by PLOS since they publish STM material.
>
> Regardless, this is interesting news - thanks for posting.
>
> Nate
>
> Nathan Hosburgh
> Electronic Resources Librarian
> Assistant Professor
> Montana State University Library
> Bozeman, MT 59717-3320
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Morrison [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:42 AM
>
> Sage Open has reduced their open access article processing fee to $99
> per article. The announcement is posted here:
> http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/press/2013/jan/24_jan.htm
>
> This is not the first OA publisher to come out with prices in this
> range. PeerJ, established by Peter Binfield (formerly PLoS ONE), has
> open access fees on a lifetime membership basis starting from $99.
>
> This raises some interesting questions. For example:
>
> What is the real cost of publishing in an open access online
> environment? Sage OPEN and PeerJ are both commercial companies. If $99
> is sufficient to cover the costs of coordinating peer review and
> publication, why would anyone pay even the $1,350 charged by PLoS ONE,
> never mind the $3,000 plus charged by some of the traditional
> publishers under hybrid arrangements?
>
> Is this an indication that transitioning to open access will indeed
> open up the inelastic market for scholarly journals to competition?
>
> best,
>
> Heather G. Morrison, PhD
> Freedom for scholarship in the internet age
> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/2012/12/12/freedom-for-scholarship-in-the-internet-age-post-defence-version/