A good example is the Queensland University of Technology Library
paying the open access journal article publishing fees for their
academics. Because its good business. They would rather push their
researchers towards OA journals, thereby building the impact of OA
journals, and meaning they can drop non-OA journals from their
subscriptions.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/support-gold-open-access-publishing-strate…
A practical experiment. ask your Office of VC-Research how many
journal articles your university produced in 2011. Times it by
USD5,000. Compare the result with your libraries journal subscription
fees for 2012.
The UIC library doesnt give exact numbers online, but here they give
aggregate costs of the 126 ARL libraries.
http://library.uic.edu/home/services/publishing-and-scholarly-communication…
If every university did that maths, with the same conclusion, they
would agree that there is an enourmous saving to be had if all
universities use open access.
Governments and funding bodies are doing the maths, and the smart ones
are forcing everyones hand by mandating OA in order to obtain funding.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dr. Jensen,
You ask who will pay for publication of journals under the open access model.
Closed access journals are supported primarily by university libraries
which pay subscription fees to publishers. Very rarely do the
publishers pay anything to the editors and reviewers who produce the
journals, but they pocket a continuously increasing profit margin,
which has been increasing at about 1% per year, and currently stands
at about 27%, per
http://www.reedelsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2012/Pages/reed-elsev…
In order to achieve such continually increasing profit margins,
publishers have been forcing price increases through bundling, which
is an abuse of their monopolistic market power which lack of
competition from alternative publishing models has allowed them to
attain.
Under the open access model, universities pay to support the
publication and printing of the journals, but do not pay subscription
fees. Because there is no profit margin charged, these costs are less
to the university than commercial subscription fees, and the resulting
readership is not limited to a tiny fraction of the population.
(Because costs to the universities are less, they can keep more of the
money for university official perks and salaries, tax deductible
junkets for the faculty, and athletic salaries. Sadly, universities
hardly ever pass any savings on to tuition payers. Every subsidy and
loan guarantee supporting tuition in the postwar era has been matched
by tuition increases above the cost of living, sadly, while university
administrative official salaries have kept pace with CEO salaries
generally, exacerbating income inequality, and increases in faculty
salaries, perks, and expenses have also exceeded the inflation rate.)
As you point out, this situation often results in greater charges to
graduate students, unless their sponsors and grant investigators are
kind enough to include the journal production fees in their department
budget. How often does that happen?
Your example of journals charging per-paper open access fees is an
example of subtle extortion in order to cause professors such as
yourself and other authors to take the position that you have, opposed
to open access. Are there any reasons to the contrary? Are there any
reasons that participation in such market manipulation schemes could
be seen as ethical?
Sincere regards,
James Salsman
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
John Vandenberg