[Open-access] more open access particle physics

Tue Sep 25 13:14:55 UTC 2012

Excellent discussion. At least we can have one on this list - which is what
it's for. (It's impossible to do this on the GOAL list - anyone not in the
Green oligarchy gets blown out of the water.)

IMO there are three things (please criticize) :
* cost
* price
* value

The COST is - in principle - measurable. Any publisher which simply
provided a defined service could publish their costs and indicate whether
they make a profit. But most publishers hide their costs both by secrecy
and bundling products so the cost is rarely known. There are some
indications that for a  journal that generally reviews a paper once and
accepts most submissions the cost is around 250 USD. However for journals
trhat have a high rejection rate the costs are higher. Nature has said that
for an open access journal they would have to charge 6500 GBP == 10000 USD.
I find it difficult to believe this is the cost, even with multiple
rejections and reviews.

The PRICE is what you pay the publisher. In most markets it is either set
by market forces (competition, perceived value, etc) or by regulators or by
some of both. However prices for subscriptions are often secret and
librarians are forced to sign non-disclosure clauses.

The VALUE is what the purchasers (whether authors - gold -or subscribers)
feel the product is worth. A paper in Nature is valued more that one in
J.Cheminformatics (on whose board I am). This is highly subjective and
self-fulfilling.

Normal market forces don't apply for a number of reasons:
* leading brands can often charge whatever they like and people will pay
it. Examples are mineral water, beauty products, fashions, foods, etc.
Prices are are sometimes related to scarcity but seldom to cost.
* people in universities are not normally paying with real money. Most
libraries get subscription income from taxpayers or students. They don't
have to go out on the streets and raise actual money . Academics are even
more insulated - they aren't expected to pay for journal subscriptions out
of their grants (the universities top-slice it).
* publication supports a number of conflicting purposes. Communication,
archival, peer-approval, etc. and also the label of glory in the field. The
latter is what drives the apparent value.
* it's not a zero-sum game. We are in a dysfunctional pseduo-equilibrium
and any unilateral move costs extra for no return. Managed change can only
come from the top. That's what RCUK is trying to do.

My simplistic solution (it won't happen) would be to separate the glory
awarding from the publication. Then communication, etc. could become
commodities under normal market forces . It would also get the publication
completely into the Open arena. And we could have an OSCAR-like process for
deciding the superstars. It oculdn't be worse that what we do at present
with Impact factors for journals decided by non-representative commercial
companies.

But at least we can discuss it freely here.

P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120925/eda90419/attachment.html>