From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:37:59 +0000
Joe,
There are many kinds of OA publishing as there are many kinds
of subscription-based (SB) publishing. And the level of peer-review
also differs, between journals, and often within journals. You
question the potential for success of peer-reviewed OA journals
because "there is no large customer base over which the overhead
can be spread." How so? Unless you are talking about magazine-type
journals with personal subscriptions (of which there are a few, but as
a portion of the total number of journals, theirs is a fraction of a
percent) there is a customer base of hundreds, occasionally more
than a thousand, libraries for most journals. That compares to the
number of potentially paying researchers, which is more than a
million (given the number of articles currently being published every
year).
The business problem of how to keep submissions coming is there
for OA publishing as well as for SB publishing. Subscriptions to
'empty' journals aren't very sustainable. The SB model has an
added business problem: how to keep libraries subscribing and
paying.
You call it a "fundamental problem" for author-pays OA publishing
(which is in reality 'author-side-paid OA publishing') that it "does not
add value to the people who pay for it". That is misunderstanding
the academic 'ego-system'. It is "Publish or Perish", not "Read or Rot"
putting the need, and that means the value-add, squarely, or at least
largely, on the side of the author. And also, an author can choose
where to publish, a reader needs access to everything in his or her
field. OA journals have no monetizable monopoloid position anymore,
in the way the SB journals do. Indeed, author-side-paid OA resolves
the economic contradictions and monopoly problems inherent in the
SB model.
Jan Velterop
On 30 Nov 2011, at 00:57, LIBLICENSE wrote:
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
|
