<div dir="ltr">On 5 October 2013 19:12, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);font-family:Arial">The point I was trying to make is that - unlike with
subscriptions - there is a direct connection between the person who benefits
from the value offered (the author) and the publisher. Thus the
marketplace should operate normally. </span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>More specifically, it's a function of what you are paying for.</div><div><br></div><div>In an author-pays model, the author is paying in part for the peer-review, editing, production, distribution - which are all replicable and comparable services between publishers, and in part the reputation of the journal they are being published in (which isn't as immediately replicable, but there is always opportunity for journals to increase or decrease their perceived worth).</div>
<div><br></div><div>As an author, you could (maybe) take your paper to another journal that has a lower APC, and it doesn't (shouldn't) affect the ability of others to read, share and use your paper.</div><div><br>
</div><div>As a subscriber, you can't simply move your subscription to another journal and get access to the same material.</div><div><br></div><div>G</div></div></div></div>