Shieber, S.

English

Shieber, Stuart

Max Planck Society eDoc Server

Where Open Access Publishing is coming from and where it is going to

MPG.PuRe

Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityA SustainableOpen-Access FutureStuart M. ShieberWelch Professor of Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and Applied SciencesandDirector, Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityIs there an OA future in any major way?Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityAll things being equal, OA is preferred to TAYesNoNo opinionDon’t care0 20 40 60 80 100“Do you think your research field benefits, or would benefit from journals that publish Open Access articles?”Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard University...yet OA publishing is not a major force010203040500 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 51- Don’t knowArticles OA articles“Approximately how many [Open Access] articles have you published in the last five years?”Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityWhy isn’t OA a major market share?FundingJournal performance and prestigeOtherAccessibilityIgnorance or unawarenessHabits“Next time”0 8 16 24 32 40“Has there been a specific reason why you have not published an article by Open Access?”Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityWhy isn’t OA a major market share?• Funding: lack of funding for APCs• Journal performance and prestige: OA journals not of good quality or no impact factor• Other: “green OA is sufficient, there are too many OA journals, someone other than the respondent decides where to publish, the publisher decides which articles are OA or there has not been a specific reason.”• Accessibility: “a bad experience with an OA journal, their paper has not been accepted or there are no OA journals on their field.”• Ignorance or unawareness: “not been aware of OA or OA journals on their field.”• Habits: “prefer to publish their papers only in certain journals.”Insufficient fundsInsufficient supplyBogusOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityWhy isn’t OA a major market share?• lack of journals and lack of prestige because• lack of publisher support because • OA lacks a revenue model because • lack of fundingOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard Universitymoneyaccesspublisherfaculty universityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard Universitypub svcsmoneymoneyaccesspublisherfacultyOA publisheruniversityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityWhy isn’t OA a major market share?• lack of journals and lack of prestige because• lack of publisher support because • OA lacks a revenue model because • lack of fundingOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityWhy isn’t OA a major market share?• lack of journals and lack of prestige because• lack of publisher support because • OA lacks a revenue model because • lack of funding because • lack of demand because • lack of journals and lack of prestigeOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityHow to break the loop• Monopsonistic approach• subscribers all agree to stop all subscriptions at a date certain and commit money to OA APCs• Simultaneous approach• subscribers and journals agree to switch revenue model alll at once (SCOAP3)• Unilateral approach• universities and funding agencies commit to underwriting APCs dspite lack of demand (COPE)Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard Universitypub svcsmoneymoneyaccesspublisherfacultyOA publisheruniversityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard Universitymoneymoneyaccesspublisherfacultypub svcsOA publisheruniversityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard University“[F]rom a societal perspective, electronic publication and more widespread circulation should be encouraged.  The best means for accomplishing this objective is subsidization of the fixed cost of publication, so that publishers would need to rely on subscriptions only to recover distribution costs.”Roger Noll, 1996, The Economics of Scholarly Publications and the Information SuperhighwayOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityHow to break the loop• Monopsonistic approach• subscribers all agree to stop all subscriptions at a date certain and commit money to OA APCs• Simultaneous approach• subscribers and journals agree to switch revenue model alll at once (SCOAP3)• Unilateral approach• universities and funding agencies commit to underwriting APCs dspite lack of demand (COPE)Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard University“Each of the undersigned universities commits to the timely establishment of durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds.”Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equitywww.oacompact.orgOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityCOPE Signatories• Cornell University• Dartmouth College• Harvard University• Massachusetts Institute of Technology• University of California at Berkeley• University of Ottawa• Columbia University• Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center• University of Michigan• Universitat de Barcelona• Duke University• University of Calgary• Simon Fraser University• CERNand thenOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityCOPE SupportersNobelists• Mario Capecchi• Robert Curl • Edmond H. Fischer• Alfred Gilman • Paul Greengard• Dudley Herschbach• Roald Hoffmann• Robert Horvitz• Roger Kornberg• Kary Mullis• Stanley Prusiner• Jack W. Szostak• Rolf ZinkernagelOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityCOPE SupportersOpen Access Leaders• Steven Hyman• Heather Joseph• Peter Lange• Peter Suber• John Wilbanks• John WillinskyOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityCOPE SupportersInstitutions• BioMed Central• Creative Commons• Hindawi Publishing• Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)• Public Library of Science (PLoS)• Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)• SPARC Europe• Wellcome TrustOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQuestions (& answers)1. Won’t this cost universities a lot of money?2. Won’t publishers just hyperinflate publication charges to maintain revenue?3. Won’t faculty at poorly endowed universities be at a disadvantage in publishing in top OA journals?4. What about authors with fewer financial resources such as those from developing countries?5. Won’t heavy-research universities end up paying more than under the subscription model?6. The OA fund idea only works if essentially all research institutions sign on.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityFunder policies• Author must provide for open access (green or gold) as soon as possible and no later than a year after publication• Authors may obtain up to x% incremental funding to pay reasonable open-access fees up to a year after grant ends• Funders will reduce overheads to compensate for open-access fund uptake so total funded research is unaffectedOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityHarvard Office for Scholarly Communicationosc.hul.harvard.eduCompact for Open-Access Publishing Equityoacompact.orgThe Occasional Pamphletoccasionalpamphlet.comOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQuestions (& answers)1. Won’t this cost universities a lot of money?2. Won’t publishers just hyperinflate publication charges to maintain revenue?3. Won’t faculty at poorly endowed universities be at a disadvantage in publishing in top OA journals?4. What about authors with fewer financial resources such as those from developing countries?5. Won’t heavy-research universities end up paying more than under the subscription model?6. The OA fund idea only works if essentially all research institutions sign on.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• Won’t this cost a lot of money right away?• No.  Empirical evidence shows that the costs are minimal at the moment. (Remember, no grant-funded research or “hybrid” fees.)Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityInstitution Months # FundedFunded/yearFaculty size$/faculty/yearBerkeley 31 92 35.61 1582 $33.77Columbia 7 2 3.43 1377 $3.73Cornell 11 3 3.27 1594 $3.08Dartmouth 11 1 1.09 450 $3.64Harvard 11 1 1.09 1633 $1.00MSKCC 5 0 0 560 $0.00MIT 2 0 0 1025 $0.00Ottawa 8 25 37.5 1257 $44.75Source: Occasional Pamphlet, http://bit.ly/9M4rsoOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• Won’t publishers just hyperinflate publication charges to maintain revenue?• If so, we’re still better off.• But authors seeing the price signal will form a functioning market. Several mechanisms, including a per-faculty cap, can enforce the market mechanism.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityArguments For Processing FeesSubscription Fee Processing Feemoral hazard yes nogood sold monopolistic competitivedemand elasticity complement substituteOffice for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• Won’t faculty at poorly endowed universities be at a disadvantage in publishing in top OA journals?• This argument hasn’t stopped subscription-based journals from charging page charges, etc. Faculty at poorly endowed universities are at a disadvantage in many ways, especially scope of library collections.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• What about authors with fewer financial resources such as those from developing countries?• Most OA journals will waive fees for necessitous authors. The fund would be applicable only to journals with such policies.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• Won’t some research-heavy universities end up paying more than under the subscription model?• Unlikely. Grant-funded articles would be underwritten by granting agencies. Removing market dysfunction will improve efficiency. Charging for a non-monopolistic service will reduce monopoly rents. But if in the end the price goes up for a particular university in a well-functioning market, the market has spoken.Office for Scholarly CommunicationHarvard UniversityQ & A• The OA fund idea only works if essentially all research institutions sign on.• True (though the fund can be broadened to apply to journals that use the transitional open access business model), so adding institutions is important. In the meantime, at least it doesn’t incur much cost. 

http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-B072-2

Where Open Access Publishing is coming from and where it is going to

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Max Planck Society eDoc Server

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe