From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:27 -0800

Not present in this discussion is the fact that there are many
different kinds of OA publishing.  The flagship PLOS journals,
for example, have an editorial policy that resembles that of
established toll-access journals.  But PLOS One has a
different kind of peer review. The first kind is probably too
expensive to thrive (as OA), since there is no large customer
base over which the overhead can be spread.  The latter kind,
which is now being widely imitated, is thriving now, but the
long-term prospects are uncertain.

The business problem is how to keep the submissions coming
for the PLOS One model.  This may not be a problem for PLOS
itself or its One service because of the strength of the brand.
But what about all the other publishers that are working with this
author-pays "lite" peer review model?  Why would an author submit
material to one such service over another?  In the absence of
old-fashioned peer review, the OA services will be hard to
distinguish from one another.

The fundamental problem with author-pays OA publishing is that
it does not add value to the people who pay for it.  It adds value
to the people who do not pay for it.  In economics, internal
contradictions have a way of revealing themselves given enough time.

Joe Esposito

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:48:47 -0800
>
> Sandy,
>
> it could be that OAP becomes equally dominated by the big deal,
> and the mechanism by which this would happen is 'subscription'.
> Particularly research libraries seem to be engaging in big OA deals
> with publishers, by agreeing a priori to pay the APC for any given year.
> Smaller publishers, possibly, would then need to coordinate (come
> together, merge?) to be more attractive to the research libraries, who
> are likely to prefer signing a few big deals than negotiating hundreds
> of contracts...
>
> OA publishers and OA advocates are likely to disagree with this
> hypothesis. Indeed, there is a widespread assumption that OAP is
> about market competition and that the APC is a price mechanism that
> links price with quality. However, at the moment we only have the
> assertion that there is (will be) market competition, numerous
> illustrations
> of OAP income streams, and a first (good) analysis of the OAP landscape
> (from the SOAP project). Missing is a first stab at the analysis of
> competition in OAP: What does competition look like and what would
> constitute a competitive advantage?
>
> At the moment, many publishers are betting that an advantage comes
> from starting a megajournal. For megajournals the APC might indeed
> signal a competitive market (unless research libraries undercut this by
> taking out subscriptions to (some) megajournals).
>
> PLoS is a small publisher, but was well funded and is on the way to
> becoming a big publisher. When starting a megajournal, it helps to have
> money in the bank. So, if I were a small(er) publisher, I would be looking
> at OAP and its opportunities urgently (including OAP for books) because
> the field is still relatively open, but once it has consolidated (more),
> the
> barriers to entry will surely rise.
>
> In sum, the concerns Sandy has are valid. The SOAP project found that
> a small number of publishers account for much of the funded OAP. Via a
> few M&As it is possible that OAP will be dominated by big players,
> possibly
> even the same players that dominate SB.
>
> However, it need not be that way, and the funders of OAP have much
> influence on the development. Then again, maybe the funders of OAP
> prefer dealing with a few large publishers?
>
> Chris
> ________________________________________
> From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of LIBLICENSE [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 25 November 2011 01:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:41:34 -0600
>
> I would ask Chris if he thinks that the benefits of co-existing OA and
> SB business models will be of equal benefit to both large and small
> publishers. Or will the largest publishers come to dominate OA
> publishing just as they have SB publishing? And if the latter is the
> case, does the high profit margin realized by the largest publishers
> really redound to the overall benefit of the scholarly communication
> system, or not? How much will quality drive the system, as opposed to
> sheer market power?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
> > From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:20:08 -0800
> >
> > Joe, Jan,
> >
> > What is maybe not well understood (yet) is the (potentially strong)
> > complementarity between open access and subscription-based publishing
> > for a system of scholarly communication in which the published output
> > continues to grow substantially (i.e. 3% p.a. because of publish or
> > perish, new players/countries, internationalisation, multi-authorship
> > etc.). Open access has opened up new sources of revenue. At the same
> > time it has a viable business model for the bulk publishing of the
> > scientific record, probably at significantly reduced cost. The
> > players/ publishers who understand/exploit this new complementarity
> > will be the ones that thrive (including a maintained or improved
> > profit margin). Of course, this may sound like bad news to some
> > advocates of open access as well as of big deal publishing, but from
> > the point of view of scholarly communication and the communities this
> > is all good news.  From here onwards, it is about optimizing the
> > synergy (i.e. positive network effects) of OA and SB publishing in the
> > interest of digital scholarly communication (i.e.
> > authors/readers/clients/customers).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
>