LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:24:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
From: Heather Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:06:28 -0800

Joe Esposito, commenting on the open access article processing fee
earlier, said:

"Will the $1,200 author fee drop to $1,000 under market pressure?  Why
not to $800?  Why not $600?  Some people working in this field believe
that $600 is breakeven.  I don't know about that, but suppose it's
true.  Doesn't this mean that all these competitors move out of the
First World to get less expensive labor? And if prices still have
downward pressure, what kind of temptation will there be for reducing
some of the services?  Will there be even less rigorous peer review?"

Comments:

First, I would like to highlight that this an industry insider telling
us that some in the field believe a $600 OA article processing fee
would be breakeven for current production practices. This is something
to keep in mind when considering the $3,000 hybrid fees offered by
some. Considering that Joe was from the for-profit sector, it seems
likely that lower article processing fees could be a possibility for
the not-for-profits.

Second, it is nonsense to think that rigorous peer review has anything
to do with publisher services. It is scholars who perform the peer
review, at no cost to publishers.

Third, in a competitive market producers compete on quality as well as price.

Fourth, there is indeed room for the developing world as the market
opens up. My perspective is that while some current companies may go
there for cheaper labour, there is room for quality scholarly
publishing services to be developed by people in the third world, and
this a good thing for all of us.

The above-average profits of a few large publishers under the current
system do indeed suggest that there is room for competition for an
open access marketplace. To me, this suggests that we do not need to
choose between open access and affordability in scholarly publishing:
we can have both.

best,

Heather Morrison, MLIS
Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2