From: Nawin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0500
Often journal citation rankings have little to do with how much one
spends on copy-editing, but more to do with journal editorial process,
workflow, tools used, and, quite simply, how well the copy-editing
functions are managed. Labor markets (where work is done) can have a
tremendous impact on costs. Subject matter can also have some impact.
I have seen range of costs associated with editorial processing from
manuscript acceptance to "ready-to-publish" range anywhere from $5 per
published page (A4-size) to $500. Generally speaking, you should be
able to do a good-quality job for around $25 per page in the US.
Nawin Gupta
Informed Publishing Solutions, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:44:40 +0100
For the purposes of comparison, could somebody point us to good
figures for the average amount (per page, say) spent on copyediting by
a solid, middle-tier journal? Not the very top-end journals, but one
you might find somewhere half-way down (or up) its category in the
journal citation rankings.
Thanks, David
On 13 Jun 2012, at 23:13, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:20:26 -0500
>
> Ok, I have read all of these articles now, and I see absolutely no
> mention of one important cost factor that does not go away when one
> moves from a TA to an OA model: copyediting. How, one wonders, does
> PeerJ expect to provide professional copyediting for an author who
> pays only $259 for a life membership when that is about what it would
> cost to edit a single article? Can this new business plan really work
> if copyediting is provided to an author for multiple articles over
> time whose cost for editing will surely exceed, by multiples, the
> initial membership fee? Or is there no mention of this because
> copyediting will be a "value added" service for which authors will
> have to pay an extra fee each time beyond the membership fee? The
> "pre-prints" of course will not be copyedited, but surely PeerJ cannot
> expect to sustain itself as a high-quality journal if it does not
> provide first-rate copyediting for the "versions of record."
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:05:07 -0400
>>
>> Many articles today about PeerJ, FYI. And I'm sure there were more
>> than this! Cheers, Ann Okerson
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/journal-offers-flat-fee-for-all-you-can-publish-1.10811
>>
>> http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/52512-scholarly-publishing-2012-meet-peerj.html
>>
>> http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/06/publishing/new-open-access-academic-publisher-promises-to-revolutionize-business-model/
>>
>> http://blog.mendeley.com/open-access/an-interview-with-the-founders-of-peerj-an-innovative-new-academic-publishing-startup/
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/06/12/interview-with-peter-binfield-and-jason-hoyt-of-peerj/
|
