[GOAL] Re: Effect of Green OA on Publishers

[Laurent Romary]

We can also keep in mind that there are ways to reduce the cost of high rejection rate, cf. the Copernicus experience: http://www.ifla.org/files/hq/papers/ifla75/142-poschl-en.pdf
Laurent

Le 30 mai 2012 à 18:06, David Prosser a écrit :

> Peter
> 
> I'm not going to argue the piblishers' case for them, but...
> 
> 1. This is cost per submission, while the hybrid OA publication cost is per published paper.  A journal that rejects a lot of papers will obviously rack-up a lot of multiples of $250.  (This raises the whole issue of submission charges - if a journal can't go open access because of the cost of rejecting 95% of papers then could it consider a submission charge to cover it.  Would people be willing to pay $250 to be considered by Nature and Science?)
> 
> 2. I think the $250 was a direct cost and so something more should be added for overheads.
> 
> 3. This is just organisation of peer review.  The study did look at other costs, but as there were so many problems with getting comparable costs from publishers for online hosting the study was not able to provide a total cost-per-article.
> 
> 4. Disappointingly, but not unsurprisingly, I think a lot of publishers set hybrid OA charges at a level to try to cover their current revenue per papers.  That's why hybrid OA charges tend to be higher than those for 'born OA' journals.  It's also why, I suspect, hybrid has never taken off (except in a few cases) - it's just too expensive.  If you want OA there are cheaper - and often better - alternatives.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 May 2012, at 16:46, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM, David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Dear All
>> 
>> 
>> An economic analysis also suggested that the cost of organising peer review is $250 per submission - an interesting factoid.
>> 
>> Thanks David - this is a very interesting fact(oid). I have always found it hard to understand why a hybrid OA publication should cost 5000 USD [*]. If the peer-review organization is the key thing and the monopoly that the publishers assert, then everything else can go to the market.
>> 
>> Hey! I can create a PDF myself!  I can create images. I can write an abstract. I put the paper on the web. I can do this myself or contract it out. This would lead to a better universal quality of publications. And all of this should be possible for a few hundred dollars - let's say anoth 250 USD on top. Limit of 500 USD.
>> 
>> [*] So the rest of the 5000 USD is profit (and the ruinous cost in the UK of stamps for first class letters).
>>  
>> P.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>> <ATT00001..txt>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120530/aea4a2d2/attachment-0001.html