Re: Failing business models

From: J.F.B.Rowland <J.F.Rowland_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:53:56 -0000

Thanks, Jan, for this very lucid explanation of the situation regarding
subscription-based scholalrly publishing and why it is now dysfunctional.
 
The publishers' Brussels Declaration spoke of a 'healthy, undistorted
free market' in scholarly publishing.  As your explanation shows, such a
market does not exist at present - nor, indeed,  has it ever. Each
journal is a natural monopoly - you can't get the same content anywhere
else.  And the existence of a healthy free market has the
prerequisite that 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.  In scholarly
publishing this has never been the case.  Authors control the journals
(by their choice of where to submit their work) and it is there for their
benefit; but libraries pay the bills.
 
If the publishers mean what they say about a 'healthy, undistorted free
market', they should convert their journals to Gold OA.  Then we will
finally reach the position where those who 'call the tune' actually 'pay
the piper'.
 
Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK.
 
----- Original Message -----
      From: Velterop, Jan, Springer UK
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Failing business models

Dana Roth writes that "The primary problem with the current system
is the failing business model followed by many commercial
publishers."

I presume she means the subscription model. Which, incidentally, is
not just used by commercial publishers but also by not-for-profit
ones.

I agree with her. But it's not the use of the subscription model by
commercial publishers that is the 'primary problem'. It is the fact
that the subscription system cannot cope with the unrelenting
growth of scientific articles that is being produced worldwide.

Before the internet, the subscription model had increasing
problems, but it was probably the least worst solution, by no means
ideal. Now, with the internet working and pretty mature, we can
have better systems. There definitely are publishers, for-profit as
well as not-for-profit (just look at the recent press release of
the DC Principles Coalition), who seem to be wedded to the
subscription model, but not only publishers. Libraries, too, do not
seem to be too keen on replacing the dysfunctional system with a
better one. And even a school of thought in the OA advocate camp,
the self-archiving champions, argue that the subscription system
will continue to sustain journals.

Of course there are difficulties to overcome if one wants to make
the transition from one system to the next, and let's concentrate
on overcoming those difficulties.

The subscription system has the following problems (and quite
possibly more):

-The price to readers/libraries bears no relation to quality. This
needs no further explanation, I guess.

-The price to readers/libraries bears no relation to the amount per
article that's taken out of the academic market. A 'cheap' journal
can, on a per-article basis, take more money out of Academia than
an 'expensive' journal. This is more common than is perhaps
realised. A substantial number of not-for-profits have seemingly
low subscription prices, but take more money per article out of the
academic market than even the most expensive commercial publishers
(where it hovers in the $5000 range). I know of several cases where
it is twice or even three times as much, and if someone would care
to analyse this information (it often is available, for
not-for-profits), one might find even higher multiples.

-The price to readers/libraries bears no relation to the cost of
publishing, but rather, to the numbers of subscribers. This is the
origin of the price spiral. Journals were cancelled, and for some
reason commercial journals suffered more than not-for-profit
journals, on the whole (with exceptions), as a result of which
subscription prices went up. This caused further cancellations and
thus the vicious cycle was created. One of the reasons why some
not-for-profits have been able to maintain lower prices is the
existence of cancellation-resistant compulsory member
subscriptions.

-The cost to libraries of subscriptions that are needed bears
little relation to the size of the actual research or teaching
efforts at the institute in question, but instead, reflects the
width of the range of disciplines researched or taught. A
specialised institute (take CERN as an example) needs no more than
a handful of journals. On the other hand, a university where the
name 'university' still relates to 'universal' knowledge, and where
a wide range of subjects are taught and researched, needs vastly
larger numbers of journals to satisfy the needs of its
constituents.

-Subscription price stability can only exist in an environment of
stability of the number of subscriptions, and of articles
published. But that environment doesn't exist. Library budgets have
been under pressure for the longest time, which is especially
apparent if they are expressed as a percentage of the research
budgets. And the number of articles keep on growing.

Most of these problems are solved in a system in which the 'publish
or perish' culture (which is definitely not of the publishers'
making) is reflected more transparently. A system in which research
articles are seen for what they are: a kind of 'advertisement' in
which the author 'advertises' his scientific prowess, in order to
get acknowledgment, citations, leading to tenure, future funding,
for a few the Nobel Prize, et cetera. That doesn't mean that
articles aren't full of information useful to readers. But so are
conventional advertisements.

The advertising analogy is not perfect, but I'm using it to
illustrate the point that there is logic in the system that levies
charges for the processing and formal publication of research
articles and subsequently makes them universally available with
open access. Open access publishing.

Jan Velterop



-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Dana Roth
Sent: Wed 2/21/2007 11:28 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Some initial thoughts on the Brussels Declaration on
STM publishing

The fact that something is possible doesn't mean it is advisable.

There is a distinct advantage in having an organizational structure
that
one can depend on to maintain stability.  Sure, the 'research
community'
can create their own journals, but who among them is going to give
up
their research and/or teaching to manage the process? 

The evolution of distributing research results, from circulating
letters
among peers to the formal journals we know today, occurred because
of
the obvious benefits in an organizational structure. 

The primary problem with the current system is the failing business
model followed by many commercial publishers. 

Dana Roth
Caltech
Received on Thu Feb 22 2007 - 12:39:26 GMT