Replies to Manfredi La Manna and Christopher Green:
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:11:30 +0000
> From: Manfredi La Manna <mlm_at_st-andrews.ac.uk>
>
> I understand that BMC's figure of $500 article-processing-charge (APC)
> per published article is based on an average rejection rate of 50%. The
> same ratio applied to a top economics journal (with a rejection rate of
> 95%) would yield a prohibitive $5,000 APC.
(1) The BMC $500 processing charge is not just for peer review.
(2) We need realistic estimates of what peer review alone costs.
(3) I very much doubt that most journals will have peer review costs as
high as $500 per submitted paper.
(4) I don't believe rejected articles cost anywhere near that amount.
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:27:27 -0500
> From: Christopher D. Green <christo_at_YORKU.CA>
>
> I've been thinking it all through this discussion, but perhaps I should make
> it explicit here. Charges such as this will *never* fly in experimental
> psychology, where the only journals that have page charges are generally
> considered to be just a hair's beadth above vanity presses. Another business
> model will have to be developed if this is to work in psychology.
Never say never. My own prediction is that it will be rough weather for
peer-review charges for the time being in all disciplines. But when
self-archiving prevails, and generates annual windfall institutional
toll savings, there will be plenty out of which to pay peer-review
charges. Where there's a way, there's a will.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 23:00:57 GMT