From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:44:49 -0800 Dear Sally, that's not what I said. Joe On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:46:38 +0000 > > I disagree with Joe that publishing (of whatever kind) does not > add value for authors. IMHO, the primary value is to the authors - > not just the peer review, editing etc, but also the fact of inclusion > in 'Journal X' with all the prestige (and other signals) that confers. > > Thus it makes some sense for those who receive the primary > value also to pay for it (though of course they don't - it's 'author-side' > payment, just as subscriptions are 'reader-side'; in neither case does > it usually come out of the personal pocket of the recipient of the benefit...) > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Email: [log in to unmask] > > > ________________________________ > From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE > Sent: 30 November 2011 00:57 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model > > 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