<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;">Bo-Christer,<div><br></div><div>I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the issue of costs due to higher rejection rates, or rather the "non-existent" costs of the process around peer review (which are everything but). It depends on the journal. In some cases, all that work is done outside the purview of the publisher, and the latter is just someone who maintains a delivery platform (and possibly procures mark-up and copy-editing, and for traditional journals, takes care of the typesetting, printing and distribution). In many cases I have been involved in, though, and am aware of, the process of peer review is quite a lot of work for the publisher, even while the peer review itself is not. It is often difficult to identify appropriate reviewers and it often takes many invitations to appropriate potential reviewers before enough can be found who accept the invitation. Then there is follow-up (you might think reviewers deliver their reports in good time, but reality is all too often different, I'm afraid). And then there is the moderation of reviews for communication back to the authors (you might think reviewers are always clear yet civil, but reality is all too often different, I'm afraid), and then in a considerable number of cases the cycle repeats, sometimes several times, before an acceptance or rejection decision.</div><div><br></div><div>Even when the whole process takes place under the supervision of a journal's academic editor, outside of the purview of the publisher, that editor and his or her support staff is usually offered financial support, the amount of which is likely more a reflection of the number of submissions dealt with than of the number of articles accepted. The latter would introduce perverse incentives to accept, anyway. You could argue that that incentive is already there (though in general thankfully resisted), and you would be right, because publisher income is dependent on published material. This is as true for APC-funded OA publishers as of subscription-funded traditional ones, the subscription fees typically rising with the amount published.</div><div><br></div><div>In many ways, it would be better if publishers stayed out of the peer review process altogether, as I have argued here: <a href="http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/essence-of-academic-publishing.html">http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/essence-of-academic-publishing.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Jan Velterop</div><div><br><div><div>On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:35, Bo-Christer Björk <<a href="mailto:bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi">bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi all,<br>
<br>
An interesting discussion. My perspective is not a moral one. The
APC charged should as far as possible reflect the quality and
services of the journal. The current full OA market (for APC
journals) is a relatively competive microeconomic market where
customers(=authors) decide where to submit in a situation where
they usually have several journals (some OA, most not ) to choose
from. Quite in contrast to the oligopolistic subscription market
or the strange hybrid OA market. So if BMC have in fact managed to
establish their better journals as high quality outlets there is
no problem in rising prices. The authors dedice. I don't think the
UK funders decisions have yet had much impact on the funding. <br>
<br>
I've personally paid APCs (or my department) for two articles in
PLoS and two in BMC journals nd I've found the benefit/cost ratio
to be excellent in all cases. In contrast I've made several grave
mistakes in the choice of where to submit to in subscription
journals. Those journals don't charge but there are high
opportunity costs in delayed publication, low visibility etc.<br>
<br>
As to the question of rising costs due to higher rejection rates I
find this to be a largely unsubstantiated claim. The IT infra is
already paid for, copy editing and invoicing costs only depend on
the published papers. Almost all of the costs of desk rejected
manuscripts and manuscripts rejected after long review processes
are born by unpaid academic editors and reviewers, that is the
global scholarly community. <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Bo-Christer<br>
<br>
On 2/28/14 3:50 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A797605C-C169-4F47-92C3-58C35C849A10@uottawa.ca" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=Windows-1252">
<div>hi Jan,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Good question! No, I have not looked into whether BMC's
rejection rates have increased.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Whether this would be an acceptable reason for increasing
prices at all, or at a particular rate, is a different question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, unlike a print-based journal with size
constraints imposed by the need to bundle articles into mailable
issues, an online open access journal can easily increase in
scale with more submissions. PLOS ONE has demonstrated the
potential for translating rapid growth in submissions to rapid
journal growth, with no price increase, technological
innovations, and a more than healthy surplus.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Heather Morrison</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 28, 2014, at 7:08 AM, "Frantsvåg Jan Erik" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jan.e.frantsvag@uit.no">jan.e.frantsvag@uit.no</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span></span></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Interesting numbers!</span></p><div><span> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Have you
investigated if some of this increase could be explained
by an increased rejection rate? – this would be an
acceptable explanation, in my opinion.</span></p><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The suspicion is, of
course, that this could be one result of e.g. the RCUK
OA policy, which creates a less competitive market and
better conditions for generating super-profits.</span></p><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I think it was
Guédon who asked why currency fluctuations always led to
price increases …
</span><span lang="EN-GB">J</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Best,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jan Erik</span></p><div><span> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jan Erik Frantsvåg</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Open Access adviser</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The University
Library of Tromsø</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">phone +47 77 64 49
50</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">e-mail
</span><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jan.e.frantsvag@uit.no"><span lang="EN-GB">jan.e.frantsvag@uit.no</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187"><span lang="EN-GB">http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187</span></a></span><span>
<span lang="EN-GB"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Publications:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns">http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns</a>
</span></p><div><span> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Fra:</b><span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>]
<b>På vegne av</b> Heather Morrison<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 28. februar 2014 00:54<br>
<b>Til:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)<br>
<b>Emne:</b> [GOAL] The dramatic growth of
BioMedCentral's open access article processing
charges</span></p>
</div>
</div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to the University of Ottawa's
open sharing of their author fund data, I've been able
to calculate that over the past few years there is
evidence that BMC is raising prices at rates far beyond
inflation (and far beyond what could be accounted for
through currency fluctuations). </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Details are posted here:</p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dramatic-growth-of-biomedcentral.html">http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dramatic-growth-of-biomedcentral.html</a></p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Note that this data reflects BMC
practices and cannot be generalized to open access
publishing as a whole. Public Library of Science, for
example, has achieved a 23% surplus in the same time
frame without increasing their OA article processing
charges at all.</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">best,</p>
</div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- <br>
Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
École des sciences de l'information / School
of Information Studies<br>
University of Ottawa</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Desmarais 111-02</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>613-562-5800 ext. 7634<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html">http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>GOAL mailing list</span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a></span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>