We should not be talking as if the different sources of funds came
from opposing parties. The money comes from the same sources(endowments, appropriations, and research grants), and is spent through the same organizations (universities and research institutes).
It shouldn't become a jurisdictional battle over who gets to write the checks. The real considerations are which system has the lower transactional costs, and which system offers more ancilliary benefits.
The defects of the current model in both respects are obvious.
Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University Library
and
Palmer School of Library & Information Science, Long Island University
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: Journal expenses and publication costs
> 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 Sat Jan 11 2003 - 23:55:19 GMT