<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2012-11-29, at 3:47 PM, LIBLICENSE Mark Doyle <<a href="mailto:doyle@aps.org">doyle@aps.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">It seems to me that the (Gold) OA model scales better with the<br>increase in total global research output than a subscription model.<br>Typically one would expect to a region's research output (and funding)<br>to scale with that region's GDP. This in turn would mean that an<br>institution's or funding agency's available money for OA APCs (say),<br>scales with their research output.<br><br>However, in the subscription model, library budgets (if they even kept<br>up with the size of their region's research output/funding, which they<br>don't!), are very unlikely to scale with the global research output.<br>For instance, would you expect a U.S. library budget to scale at the<br>same (high) rate as the research output increase in China?<br><br>Publisher's costs naturally scale with the amount of the research they<br>must peer review and publish. In a Gold OA model, revenue naturally<br>scales with the number of papers published (assuming acceptance rates<br>stay more or less constant given the unpopularity of submission fees).<br>So a 50% increase in research output, would mean a 50% rise in APC<br>fees collected, with institutions and funding agencies having their<br>contributions scale with their local increase in output rather than<br>the overall output of the world.<br><br>In the subscription world, a 50% increase would mean shrinking<br>subscription bases and prices rising much higher than 50% as libraries<br>fail to keep up with the increasing cost to acquire the world's<br>research output (this is really just the historic serials crisis in a<br>nutshell in my view).<br></blockquote><div><br></div>(1) Gold OA costs are vastly inflated today.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) Universally mandated Green OA and the resulting cancelation pressure</div><div>will force costs down to the true (post-Green) essentials: just managing peer </div><div>review.</div><div><br></div><div>(3) That cost will be less than $200 <i>per paper submitted</i> (as long</div><div>as the costs of rejected and revised/re-refereed papers are</div><div>not gratuitously added to the costs of accepted papers), hence</div><div><a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html">per round of peer review</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>(4) Under those conditions, with Green OA universally mandated and</div><div>and provided, subscriptions can be cancelled, generating huge windfall</div><div>savings for institutions -- enough to pay the Gold OA costs of peer review,</div><div>per round of review, many times over.</div><div><br></div><div>(5) And under those conditions, the "unpopularity" of submission fees</div><div>(understandable today, at today's inflated prices, and with not </div><div>subscription cancelation windfall out of which to pay them) will</div><div>vanish, quite naturally.</div><div><br></div><div>(I have been pointing this out for <a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg304">years</a> and <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/">years</a>, but no one pays any</div><div>attention. It won't be till Green OA is universally mandated, making it </div><div>possible for subscriptions to be cancelled, that it will be understood, </div><div>hence believed…)</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Best regards,<br>Mark<br><br>Mark Doyle<br>Director, Journal Information Systems<br>American Physical Society<br><br>On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:57 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@GMAIL.COM">liblicense@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">From: Joseph Esposito <<a href="mailto:espositoj@gmail.com">espositoj@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:45:13 -0500<br><br>I am sure that I am not the only person who has observed that the<br>total cost of scholarly material has increased since the advent of<br>open access publications. And it will continue to grow. Even if it's<br>true that OA could cut costs by 15%, what does that mean if research<br>increases by 50%?<br><br>Joe Esposito<br><br><br>On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com">liblicense@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">From: Richard Poynder <<a href="mailto:richard.poynder@gmail.com">richard.poynder@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:02:23 +0000<br><br>“We estimate that a full transition to OA could lead to savings in the<br>region of 10-12% of the cost base of a subscription publisher.”<br><br>BernsteinResearch investment analyst Claudio Aspesi<br><br>The key question: If Aspesi's estimate of the potential cost savings<br>provided by a full transition to OA is accurate, would those savings<br>be passed on to the research community if they were achieved?<br><br><a href="https://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168/posts/ao2BBmwpzHg">https://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168/posts/ao2BBmwpzHg</a><br><br>http://bit.ly/TquCZz<br><br>Richard Poynder<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div><br></body></html>