It is hard to get clear-cut, decisive empirical evidence on economic
behaviour or on pricing decisions. Twenty years ago when I was an
academic journal publisher we 'knew' that the pricing of journal
subscriptions was relatively inelastic (shows monopoly power). Much less
elastic than say 'student textbook' pricing. This meant that if the
subscription to a journal went up (down) by 10% it would be extremely
unlikely to affect the circulation by 20%, perhaps a perturbation of
1-2-3% would be expected. Some radical souls though that pricing made
almost no difference at all to circulations.
I think the proponents of OA can agree with the publishers that the
monopoly power and the pricing power of the traditional academic journal
is obviously affected by the availability of open access options for
reading the scientific and scholarly literature. The publishers may not
like it when it is pointed out that this previous pricing power and
economic resilience reflects an unjustified monopoly (a no longer
justified monopoly), but I dont see why the proponents of OA should mind
recognising that the technology of OA (the internet au fond) is a
disruptive technology and will change economic behaviour of libraries,
publishers and researchers. That is indeed part of the point.
It is odd that we should be arguing that there is no sure fire proof that
behaviour will change, when we fully expect that behaviour should change
and IS changing the way things are done.
All sides can also agree that the continuing provision of quality control
by editors and referees is also important. This is something no one wants
to lose and provides a continuing rationale for the role of the
publisher.
Adam
On 8/23/05, Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, J.F.B.Rowland wrote:
> I think Sally Morris is on somewhat stronger ground than
Stevan alleges -
It would be useful if Fytton made it clear in precisely what
this
"somewhat stronger ground consists." It is not clear whether
he has read
the two rebuttals in question:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html
A quick summary is this:
Sally hypothesises that the RCUK Self-Archiving Policy
would lead to
the (strong version) "destruction of journals" and/or
(weak version)
"negative effect on subscriptions."
Sally provides no evidence whatsoever in support of this
(either version).
(She cites 5 examples, 3 of them having nothing at all to
do with
self-archiving -- concerning only journals that make
their contents free
online; plus 2 examples having to do with author citation
and usage
statistics, both of which can and will be easily and
naturally adapted
to the new medium, hence have no implications one way or
the other.)
All actual evidence is contrary to both the strong and
weak versions
of Sally's hypothesis: Self-archiving has been
co-existing peacefully
with journal publication for 15 years now. And even in
areas where
it has been practised the longest (physics) and
approaches 100%
in some fields, the journals report no cancellations
associated
with self-archiving.
Fytton is not providing any further evidence here, for or
against the hypothesis
(either the strong or the weak version). He is merely stating
that he too holds
the hypothesis.
But there's no more accounting for hypotheses than for
tastes, in the absence of
any supporting evidence, and in the presence of nothing but
contrary evidence.
> although the suggestion that widespread use of OA
repositories will
> ultimately harm the subscription sales of journals is only
a prediction, it
> is a fairly logical one. If an item can be obtained free
of charge, for how
> long will people go on buying it?
If every prediction that was not in contradiction with logic
were provisionally
taken to be true, Doomsday Prophecies would indeed rule.
The question is not whether the prediction is contrary to
logic but whether it is
contrary to the evidence: And it is contrary to all the
evidence to date.
The rest is speculation: Why do libraries still subscribe?
Here are a couple
of logical speculations:
(1) They still want the print edition
(2) They want the publisher's value-added online edition,
not just
the author's self-archived final draft.
Probably there are more one can think of. But note that they
are all speculations
about the reasons why the destruction/cancellation
speculation is *not* supported
by any evidence. In other words, they are merely
counter-speculations.
But why are we speculating and counter-speculating, when one
body of evidence is
substantial and irrefutable: Self-archiving increases
research usage and impact
dramatically. That is extremely good for research. And there
is no sign of its being
bad for publication either.
So RCUK is taking the logical step of increasing
self-archiving, so as
to increase research usage and impact, and Sally and Fytton
are instead
just speculating.
> On the other hand, it seems likely that any such effect
will occur gradually
> over a period of years.
Which effect? We have different effects in mind. I am
thinking of the
*demonstrated* effect of self-archiving: increased usage and
impact,
a face-valid benefit for research and researchers.
Sally and Fytton are instead thinking about an
*undemonstrated* negative
effect of self-archiving: increased journal cancellations,
And the net result is that a hypothetical, undemonstrated
negative effect
(for publishers) is being taken (by Sally, perhaps not
Fytton) as grounds
for delaying or derailing a real, demonstrated positive
effect (for researchers).
Let us hope that the RCUK will not be persuaded by such
logic.
> This gives all parties concerned time to adapt.
The RCUK immediate-self-archiving policy needs to be adopted
immediately. Whether
or not there is something that publishers will need to adapt
will be seen if and
when there are any signs of it. Right now, there are none.
> OUP and Springer are each starting to do so
Fytton is again changing the subject: OUP and Springer are
experimenting with
making their journals free online, or with giving their
authors the option to pay
them to make the journal version of their articles free
online for them. That is
an adaptation, to be sure, but it is not an adaptation to the
effects of
self-archiving (of which there are none, insofar as journal
renewals and
economics are concerned).
There are also logical things one could say about these
experiments, but never
mind: let 1000 flowers bloom. The only thing about OUP and
Springer policy that is
remotely pertinent to self-archiving is that Springer is
full-green (green light
to self-archive both postprint and preprint) and OUP is only
pale-green (green
light only for preprint).
http://romeo.eprints.org/ That's
not tragic:
There's plenty of wiggle room in what counts as the
"preprint" -- and,
at bottom, authors don't really need their publishers'
blessing to
self-archive their own drafts; it's just a sop for the
timorous and
the pedantic.
But the point is that self-archiving is the green road to OA,
and what OUP and
Springer are experimenting with is the golden road, which is
perfectly fine
(though probably premature).
> and Bo-Christer Bjork from Finland has also recently made a
proposal for
> transitional arrangements that look as if they could work
(see
>
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=event_international_0605#Spks).
One can speculate about hypothetical transition scenarios --
and I have not been
un-guilty of doing a spot of that myself, in my more naive
past -- but it is now
clear that among the many things that have been needlessly
delaying the optimal
and inevitable -- 100% OA -- was this constant predilection
for counterfactual
speculation while ignoring and failing to act upon the actual
facts on the ground.
So, for now, I declare, with Newton (and for the sake of
research progress):
Hypotheses non fingo.
> There are potentially greater problems for learned society
publishers, for whom
> Sally speaks, than for larger publishers.
I think the research community would do better to deal with
its actual problem of
needless research impact loss, rather than subordinating it
to publishers'
hypothetical/potential/maybe problems -- whether the
publishers be commercial ones
or those that are *nominally* closer to the research
community, the learned
society publishers (though one wonders, sometimes!).
> A current JISC-funded project being undertaken by Mary
Waltham is
> investigating possible future business models for them; I
look forward
> with interest to reading her report.
It is splendid to be working on possible future business
models for publishers,
but you will forgive me for being far more concerned about
the actual impact loss
for research and researchers, today...
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif
Stevan Harnad
.
Received on Tue Aug 23 2005 - 23:40:59 BST
