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/