From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:01:24 -0600 I wish people would not make such generalizations as "the goal of publishing is to make a profit" when that is manifestly untrue for a large number of scholarly publishers, including university presses, society publishers, and publishers attached to NGOs (like the World Bank and OECD). I think it is likely that libraries will have even less "control" in the OA environment than they have had in the TA environment. APCs will be paid by a wide range of entities, among which libraries will likely not be the dominant source. Foundations, which have never been involved directly in the market before, are already playing a significant role, for instance. I thus do not foresee much chance of any one source of OA funding as having the ability to keep costs down. Sandy Thatcher At 3:40 PM -0500 11/29/12, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask] > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:28:04 +0400 > > Hi All > > Joe notes: > >> I am sure that I am not the only person who has observed that the >> total cost of scholarly material has increased since the advent of >> open access publications. And it will continue to grow. Even if it's >> true that OA could cut costs by 15%, what does that mean if research >> increases by 50%? > > I think, perhaps, the starting point is to tease out words like > "costs." There are costs to the publisher, and there are costs to the > consumer (mainly, the libraries) - the costs to the consumer, though, > are mainly based on _charges_ BY the publisher TO the consumer. > > In an ideal world, charges to the consumer will increase only if the > publisher's costs increase. In reality, there is virtually no > relationship between the two. (In any business, charges to the > customer are determined almost exclusively by supply-and-demand; at > base level, the questions are: how much is the consumer prepared to > pay for this, and how many consumers are prepared to pay this amount? > There is nothing evil about this - this is how a "good" business > operates, and publishing is a business, not a service or a charity. > The goal of publishing is to make a profit, and the consumer is merely > a means to achieving that goal. As I say, there is nothing > particularly evil (or strange) about this - it is the business model > that is repeated around the world.) > > So, when Joe speaks of the rise in the cost of scholarly material, are > we talking about the rise in _producing_ that material, or the rise in > the charges to the the consumer to _access_ that material? > > The reason it's important to know these is that consumers have very > little control over the costs of producing and publishing research. > Over the charges, however, the consumers have tremendous control, but > only if they work together. One library saying "No, we will not pay > those charges" means little. 100 libraries saying the same thing > becomes a different matter entirely. > > So, if libraries take a little control, and ensure that their charges > do not rise exorbitantly, then the impact of OA savings may be more > significant. Of course, to do this, you would need to know exactly > how much other libraries are paying for that product, and then begin > working together. Mmmmm. Until that happens, however, OA will have > very little impact on the costs of running a library, because, as > sales of Non-OA research journals drop in terms of units, publishers > will simply increase the charges for those units that _are_ sold, so > that profits hold firm and increase. Which, as I read Joe's comment, > is exactly what is happening right now. > > > Regards > > Ken > > Dr. Ken Masters > Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics > Medical Education Unit > College of Medicine & Health Sciences > Sultan Qaboos University > Sultanate of Oman > E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education > > > On 29 November 2012 02:57, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:45:13 -0500 > > > >> >> I am sure that I am not the only person who has observed that the >> total cost of scholarly material has increased since the advent of >> open access publications. And it will continue to grow. Even if it's >> true that OA could cut costs by 15%, what does that mean if research >> increases by 50%? >> >> Joe Esposito >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]> >> > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:02:23 +0000 >> > >> > "We estimate that a full transition to OA could lead to savings in the >> > region of 10-12% of the cost base of a subscription publisher." >> > >> > BernsteinResearch investment analyst Claudio Aspesi >> > >> > The key question: If Aspesi's estimate of the potential cost savings >> > provided by a full transition to OA is accurate, would those savings >> > be passed on to the research community if they were achieved? >> > >> > https://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168/posts/ao2BBmwpzHg >> > >> > http://bit.ly/TquCZz >> > >> > Richard Poynder